Taxes!
Having worked on the ground for the Obama campaign for the last six weeks, I can tell you two things for certain about this election:
First, Issue #1 for the Obama campaign is the economy. Duh.
Second, Issue #1 for the majority of the electorate is also the economy. Duh.
Why then does the McCain camp seem so intent on dodging the subject; forever trying to make this election about military/foreign policy experience (probably a bad idea) and the Iraq war ?
I think I have a few ideas:
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland speaking before a McCain Economic Forum in Portsmouth, OH.
Those signs are all over Ohio right now. So are these:
Americans are feeling the sting of this economic downturn. Gas prices are increasingly unbearable, the housing situation remains dire, lending institutions are hanging on by a government financed thread; things are not going well. Besides the fact that McCain is not so well versed in economics, what does he have to fear from whiny American voters?
Well, his tax policy.
This spiffy graphic comes from the Washington Post, based on data from a study done at the Tax Policy Center. The juicy entirety of the findings can be found here, and they are actually interesting even to those of us not well versed in economics.
If I were an economist, I could make all sorts of informed inferences about what this graph and the full study means. Maybe Kevin can help us out with that. For now, all I want to do is to point out some very clear points:
While both candidates aim to mostly reduce taxes, McCain’s most drastic decreases are on the top 1% of Americans, while Obama’s only increases affect the same people. The difference between them tops $1 million.
Stances on taxing the rich are a rather fundamental element of most voters’ political psyche and are not likely to change over the course of one debate. McCain wants to drastically lessen the progressive nature of our tax code, while Obama wants to deepen it at the highest tiers. It is pretty simple and I’ll leave the merits of either stance to our readers to debate. The point is that this dichotomy is pretty typical of a Presidential race. Republican wants to tax the rich less, Democrat more. Whoopee.
The next point is the big one: After you account for the richest 1% of Americans, every other bracket would actually see a tax reduction in Obama’s plan. This goes against conventional wisdom for 99% of Americans that Democrat=higher taxes. This brings me back to the signs in Ohio. With Obama’s plan, 95% of Ohioans would see at least a $1,000 decrease in their taxes. I daresay that helps out average Americans with spending, fuel consumption and other life expenses more than any relief package (of which Obama believes we need another, by the way).
I won’t go into whether or not one tax plan is actually better than the other, because again, I’m not an economist. However, I’ll venture a guess as to what most Americans are interested in hearing about. As you move down the income scale, Obama’s tax cuts are more substantial than McCain’s. As you move down the income scale, the number of American’s fitting into the bracket is much higher as well. And I’ll tell you what, with the breadth and effectiveness of the Obama campaign’s voter registration and get out the vote efforts, this is something for the McCain camp to seriously worry about. People are listening.
Fewer taxes is always a welcome element to any politician’s platform in the eyes of most voters. However, when you are coming into office during an economic downturn, during a long term war investment and one of the most serious national debt situations in the nation’s history, the government has to make money somewhere, doesn’t it? China already holds over $1 trillion in reserve, I don’t think they want much more of our debt. I’m not so sure the gold standard is the answer yet either, but maybe Dr. Paul can sell me on that one on Sept. 2nd.
I don’t have answers, but I think its pretty clear why McCain isn’t keen on discussing the economy. Obama is driving the issue hard, and has the policies to actually compete and really out do McCain on an issue that is traditionally a strength of the Republicans. “It’s the economy, stupid” isn’t enough for the Obama camp. They are pointing that slogan at their rival and backing it up with some real ideas. We’ll see how that works out for them.
Meanwhile, hold on to your hats kids, the economy is going to be it this year.
-Mike
So 60% of Americans would get a break between $0.37 – $6.13 / week under McCain or $10.90 – $20.04 / week under Obama? A fat lot of difference that will make for a family of 4. This is what we’re supposed to be excited about?
Well Omegian,
The governments role isn’t to pay you. That’s your job.
Marc. Your an idiot. No seriously you are.
Omegian,
The point is that taxes won’t go up for that 60% of Americans under Obama. That is one of the oldest and most fundamental attacks from conservatives against Democrats: Don’t elect him, he’ll raise taxes!
Well, this time he won’t for 99% of Americans.
Frank,
If you want to insult me at least use the correct for of “you’re.”
What I was getting at, albeit it subtly, is that we’re current in huge debt, and you’re going to have to pay your taxes in order to alleviate that.
So, $1,000 a year or more is nothing to moan over. Or are you going to tell me you won’t appreciate the money?
Great article
Any tax cut with a budget deficit is a “tax shift” from us to our Children/Grandchildren. Obama’s “Kiddie bill” seems lower than McCain’s.
Sorry, but this is incomplete and thus not trustworthy. No mention whatsoever of Obama’s plan to raise the amount of taxable income under Social Security.
And, what most of the “class warfare” lovers forget is that many of the so-called “rich” that Obama is trying to soak are in fact small businesses that create the majority of jobs in our country.
Under the system that exists now, the government takes our money by force and gives it to bankers, government contractors & oil companies.
What we should do is simply vote to reverse that.
We have more right to the money than they do AND there is more of us then there are of them.
Notice that the signs behind ‘Strickland’ are all for Obama who knows what that picture is.
Could someone link to the original washingtonpost article that has this graphic?
“And, what most of the “class warfare” lovers forget is that many of the so-called “rich” that Obama is trying to soak are in fact small businesses that create the majority of jobs in our country.”
Anyone who makes $603,403+ a year is rich. (Top 1%) It doesn’t matter what they do, they should be shouldering a much larger burden on our government than the little guy.
The money that is being most heavily taxed is money the make IN EXCESS of $600,000. That means you’ve already made $600,000 dollars that year before the government starts taking more. $600,000. 60% of americans fall into a yearly bracket of less than 10% of that amount. Oh and under McCain’s plan dollars in EXCESS of $600,000 are getting the biggest tax breaks… Cause they need it after all… Life gets a lot tougher once you break $600,000 A YEAR.
OH OH AND ANY DOLLARS SPENT ON SMALL BUSINESS’S ARE NOT TAXABLE!!!! SO ALL THOSE JOBS THAT ARE CREATED BY THOSE 600,000/YEAR TAX PAYERS WILL STILL BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT INCOME IS CALCULATED AFTER BUSINESS EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Not for nothing but between Obama’s $$$ needs and a Dem dominated Congress I think any and all numbers floating around aren’t worth much.
I notice that the other commenters here fail to take into account, is that EVERY “soak the rich” scheme that’s ever been sold to the public has turned into a “soak everyone” scheme within a few years.
The fed and the government will keep inflating the money, and push us right into those higher brackets. Why do I think so? Because it’s *always* happened that way throughout the history of the income tax in our country.
When we first got the income tax imposed in 1913, we were promised that it would only ever affect the top 1% of earners. Didn’t work out that way, did it?
If Obama wants to help average Americans financially, then the steps are clear: 1) STOP inflating the currency. 2) bring the US military home from the 130 countries around the world where we have bases. 3) eliminate income taxes (which would cut back the federal budget to the already-bloated levels of 1997.)
-jcr
Marc,
Do you know the difference between paying someone, and refraining from robbing him?
Tax money is OUR money, not the government’s.
-jcr
I don’t anymore believe that graph than a man in the moon. I say any family making more than 66Kis going to paying more taxes under Obama; not less. And I’d be willing to bet some cash on that.
And we haven’t even gotten to the corporate side of things – as if somehow corporations are some black box out there – never to pass on a cost to consumers.
How about FICA? And exactly how does Obama propose to pay for all of his promises with less tax dollars? What about dividend income being doubled? What about….I could go on and on.
This is the big Dimocratic lie. There ain’t no
way Obama can possibly fulfill him promises and offer a tax cut to all but the 1% of earners. Besides…those 1% of earners will have every dollar deferred – every loophole filled.
It will be right back to the middle class getting soaked.
Sorry Mike – I’m not calling you a liar. But I am saying you’re being duped.
You come back to me Mike (in writing preferably)
the numbers proposed by Obama is elegant mathematics. and it’s really hard to lie around sound calculations.
Rassi,
Obama’s plan to raise the amount of taxable income under social security only affects those earning more than $102,000 a year. You’re right that the report from the Washington Post leaves this out but the general jist of Obama’s tax plan remains the same, target the wealthy. Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing is a matter of great debate.
Mike,
The chart basically speaks for itself. The obvious question we must ask ourselves whether or not we like supply-side or demand-side economics better. The debate as to which stimulates the economy better is likely one that will never be resolved.
Personally, I am more concerned with the fiscal deficit than I am with who receives the tax cuts. I would conclude that Obama’s plan “cuts” (I’m not taking into consideration his planned changes to Social Security so “cut” may in the end not be correct) taxes less than McCain’s thereby hurts the fiscal deficit less.
Debates about spending may now ensue since taxes are but only one half of the fiscal deficit problem.
I would suggest that you folks read a recent article in The Economist titled “It’s the economy again stupid”. I’d post a link here if I could find a web version but my efforts were fruitless, it’s on page 36 of the most recent print edition.
As ashamed as I am to say it, this article really pushes me toward McCain rather than Obama. That large of a tax increase would, in fact, be rather painful.
@Bob Smith: Why should we? Isn’t noblesse oblige the sort of thing that you would disagree with? Besides, raising taxes will, in fact, make us consider other options for lowering them. This isn’t the nicest country to live in in the first place.
As ashamed as I am to say it, this article really pushes me toward Obama rather than McCain. That large of a tax increase would, in fact, be rather painful… to the richest 1% of America, which I am not a part of. I am, however, part of the 99% of America that would benefit from Obama’s tax plan.
exactly A.W. and yet yours is the demographic that chooses all too easily not to vote, or vote the simpler choice.
Social welfare is expensive, and it hurts the upper middle class but the real test of how it works is to see the money in effect around your streets at least several months or years AFTER the election. Good luck on making the right decision.
@W.A. : It’s funny how the successful fail to recognize the contributions of their environment to their success. (Would you be as successful if you lived in a less prosperous country?) As far as your leaving the country threat, don’t let the doorknob hit you on the butt on the way out!
Obama Make ethanol production your top priority.
No food crops , cattails will do a much better job.
5% of unusable farmland, heck use 50% and become the Middle East of ethanol.
We switched over to ethanol in World War 2
in 6 mos.
500b spent on Iraq could have bought us energy independence.
Learn here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:Alcohol_can_be_a_Gas
Taxing the hell out the rich to pay for everyone else has been tried here before and is currently employed in several countries over seas. It doesn’t increase revenue. It never has and never will. That is probably hard to see when you’re busy swooning over your idol.
1) that’s a confusing chart.
2) You know, those rich people don’t hide their cash under their mattresses; it’s being invested. That is generally more economically positive than giving it to the government spend it.
Basic economic theory is thus:
The economy grows when more value exists in the marketplace, reflected by transactions trading goods and services. So you don’t “redistribute” the wealth (i.e. try to cut-up more equal slices of pies), you invest in creating value (thus actually creating more pies).
The basic thrust of “redistribution” ideals falter because they assume one fixed size pie.
Tex Taylor you haven’t a clue.
First prove to me that there will be less tax dollars under Obama.
You can’t do that. The point is he’ll actually be generating even more revenue but taxing the wealthy at a fair level. In fact his suggested tax increases for the super wealthy seem a little low to me.
The point is Obama will be collecting more tax dollars from the people most capable of paying them. The same people that are currently paying the least fair share of their income in taxes, and also simultaneously the heaviest users of government provided services.
They’re currently getting a sweet tax deal at the rest of the American citizenry’s expense. It’s far beyond time that that that minuscule percentage of the population be made to pay their fair share.
Is it me? , or no one else notice that the picture above has the following caption:
“Ohio Governor Ted Strickland speaking before a McCain Economic Forum in Portsmouth, OH.”
But all I see are Obama’s signs all over the place…. oopss
Actually if you look at the brookings institute data (from where this blog supposedly originates the data the Wash Post article is derived), Sen. Obama effectively RAISES taxes for 25% of the population (net: lowers after tax income), whereas Sen. McCain LOWERS taxes for everyone. Seems to make sense that Sen. Obama is trying to play Robin Hood.
p.s. I second Brandon’s comment that in general, those with wealth tend to know better what to do with it than the government.
Jay,
Oops for McCain, yes. Strickland is the Democratic governor of Ohio.
That would be the whole point of the image, you see. Economy talk doesn’t work out in McCain’s favor.
It’s incredible how blind people are. The chart speaks for itself. Almost all Americans benefit more under Obama’s plan. McCain doesn’t even know what the economy is. I’ll admit that I’ve even lost some respect for Obama because of some of his recent voting records and middle leanings, but this is simply as clear as day.
HeyHere is a brilliant idea. Gut the heck out of government. Why are we not cutting government back? Do we really need 752 military bases around the world?
Tom Shadow,
Great name – kind of like your reasoning.
The point is he’ll actually be generating even more revenue but taxing the wealthy at a fair level. In fact his suggested tax increases for the super wealthy seem a little low to me.
Why don’t you give us the historical proof of this please? Typical frickin’ marxist parroting the lib meme.
Socialist rubes like you have been telling us for 40 years that taxing the “wealthy” is the answer to all our problems. The historical record says otherwise – one President named Kennedy didn’t agree with you.
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate by 60%. Following that, tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Don’t penalize someone’s success for your personal failures…we can’t help it if your another floundering flunkie with a liberal arts degree.
And the next time you tell somebody their clueless, come with a little proof before you open your piehole.
Tom Shadow thinks the top don’t pay their fair share. Well Tom, I don’t think you bottom 50% are carrying much of a load at 3% of the taxes paid and here’s the proof:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Wealth redistribution! Force the entrepreneurs and successful to pay the piper!
I cannot wait until the day when all men are equal in income and own nothing more or less than the next person. Absolute material and social equality for all, and to all others no mercy!
Vote Obama in 2008!
rassi:
small businesses do not make anywhere near 2.8M+ per year. they just don’t. that’s why their called ’small’. ceo’s don’t even make that, generally. Their average income i read something was around 350k/yr, yet some make 700-1.5M but more than that but it’s still not who will see big cuts.
You know, i talked to my sister last night who is a pharmacist making 120k/yr and probably more with overtime. She frequently sends meals back that don’t meet her high standards. She complains about people exploiting the system to get unemployment or gov’t benefits close to 200us/month which she says erroneously they spend on pot instead of their kids. She does not have kids, has a 240k condo and buying another house, and yet she complains so much about other people and how they spend their chump change.
I’ve noticed this about rich people, it’s not just her. They are stingy as fuck. They deserve to have some of their money taken away because the only thing that begets money *is* money. So taxing them heavily creates a little more fairness, in my opinion.
The average American family is under intense financial pressure. Take a look at the mortgage industry and record foreclosures going on. McCain is merely an extension of the Bush debacle. McCain supports a war that has no end. Where is he going to get the money for a tax cut, even if for only 1% of Americans?
chrisn, I dunno. I don’t think “stingy” is the right word. I think fiscal responsibility definitely applies when you compare how well off people can be compared to those less well off assuming they started at about the same place.
However, there’s a fallacy in assuming that socialism is inherently bad and that true capitalism is the answer. That fallacy lies in the following:
Everyone is NOT born in the same position. Because my mother had a professional degree when I was born, I was born into something very different than someone born into an impoverished single parent household.
Naturally, everything has been easier for me; I’ve been fiscally responsible, and have focused on education but I do not deny that much of my path has been made significantly easier because of the luck I had in being born where I was to whom I was.
If every single child was born into the same environment, socialist policies would just be bad management. However, you can’t blame the poor kids for being born poor, though you can blame them if they refuse to ever further their own situation.
However, it’s much harder for them to climb the ladder than it was for me, and that is not insignificant.
LOL, in one ear and out the other, thats politics. tell the sheeple what they want to hear then develop sudden memory loss once elected.
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
While I do like Obama and his income tax policy, I have yet to see any fancy graphs made for any number of other taxes that he may or may not impose on the american people, rich or not. This chart is ONLY INCOME TAX. One, (albeit large) portion of all the federal taxes people have to pay. I’m assuming because he is interested in creating a welfare state (taxing the rich and giving to the poor) he’s going to raise medicare tax, social security tax, transfer tax, and capital gains tax which will affect a lot more middle class workers.
Take a look at the mortgage industry and record foreclosures going on. McCain is merely an extension of the Bush debacle.
Oh yes. Bush is responsible for all evil. Forget personal accountability and blame it on the President when your own personal life falls apart from your bad decisions. Bet Bush signed the loans…and held a gun to the mortgage brokers.
If McCain is an extension of Bush, better than Obama an extension of the debacle called Dhimmi Carter.
And perhaps many Americans need to take account of their own lives before looking for someone else to blame.
Your government can’t and shouldn’t save you…
Yeah well Tex,
It’s both their faults. Of course, yes, its the banks and homeowners faults for taking part in risky loans which caused this mess.
However, even back during the Clinton days economists had been warning of this disaster with the housing market so both administrations failure to enact tighter reg.’s or levy heavier punishments but them to blame as well.
After all, a president does “lead” the nation.
Not that in anyways excuses the actions of dumbass borrowers or lenders.
After all, a president does “lead” the nation.
True, but not in people’s day to day decision about how they conduct their personal finances.
I can lay the blame at the feet of a lot of people Marc – mainly irresponsible consumers, greedy and irresponsible mortgage companies, and bleeding hearts that feel everybody deserves a home – never mind whether they can afford it, or not.
I can blame Bush for many things – but this one isn’t his fault.
A great article and conversation.
@Tom Shadow:
The Laffer Curve also supports Tex’s claim. It’s theory is that after a certain point, the more taxes are raised, the less revenue is ultimately recieved. Rich people and companies invest money, which in turn helps the economy to grow. I am not saying it is right or wrong, only describing the theory. It goes to the heart of Supply-Side economics.
And leads directly to this point by Kevin:
This is really the bottom line of the McCain (Supply-Side) and Obama (Demand-Side) tax plans. It seems to be the constant arguement of macroeconomics.
Personally, I lean more towards Supply-Side. But I am new to economics, so I have little to base that on.
alot of the supply-siders who have commented here have a wrong-headed notion of what progressive tax policy really achieves.
tax money doesn’t disappear into a black hole never to be seen again. its not just throwing dollar bills on a bonfire. it gets invested on things that are potentially useful to the country.
it would be one thing to argue about where the money ought to go. thats a valid debate. its another thing entirely to act like the money is always better left in the hands of the rich. the investments that rich people make with their money are no more or less likely to produce meaningful dividends than anything the government might do with it.
the meaningful distinction here is that money invested by wealthy individuals nearly always goes towards the aim of increasing the wealth of that individual and is not very likely to pay a dividend of any kind to the population at large. tax money, if properly invested by the government in infrastructure and other dividend bearing investments, is of much greater benefit to more people than anything a wealthy individual might do with the money. this is the basic principle of utilitarianism.
This graph is B.S. I keep trying to figure out what Obama’s positions on various taxes are, but he keeps changing them. When they made this graph, they could hand pick any combination of Obama’s changing positions to make it say whatever they want. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to account for CAPITAL GAINS TAX, which Obama says he’ll raise (though he keeps changing his mind on how much). That will affect 100 million Americans and would significantly alter this already flawed graph.
In addition, if this graph is accurate, it would seem that Obama’s plan would hurt poor people. When you take more money away from the rich, they have less to invest with. When they invest less, they create less jobs. The lowest class always suffers the most from a shortage of jobs. This isn’t rocket science.
Sorry, but this article fails due to a faulty premise. Nice writing style though! Clear and concise.
The Obama team seems to have a problem with bookkeeping even at the basic level. Here is just one of many examples-
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_27039482315+0
(Use the ‘next page’ function at the top, you’ll get to what I’m referring to eventually) ^
This one is recent; and 77 pages:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28039783923+0
For you economic illiterates who desperately defend your Marxist messiah, here’s your “Tax Facts” lesson for the day:
Those “evil rich” 1% are already paying more than 1/3 of all income taxes. Apparently, for life’s losers (such as yourselves), that’s not nearly enough.
Also, your main man Barry O thinks that $75k is “rich”. I’m guessing you Kool-Aid drinkers earning minimum wage are inclined to agree with him.
CA raised taxes on their “rich”, and these folks have left for more business- anf family-friendly locales, such as next-door neighbor NV. It turns out that they don’t like having the fruits of their labor confiscated at an oppressive rate to fund CA’s bloated socialist appetite. Who knew?
But hey, I don’t expect you to let trivialities like “facts” get in the way of your warped socialist worldview.
Anyone can put a graph up. This graph is a lie. This graph pretends that everyone earns their income based upon a W2. I lost a second property last year. Under Obama’s plan of doubling capital gains, I would have had my taxes doubled. With both my wife and I working, we barely make six figures. But our taxes would have been $80,000 under Obama’s new tax plan. Most wealthy people do not earn W2 income and will not pay more taxes, but someone who needs income out of a first or second residence will be screwed by Obama. And the wealthy will move their earnings offshore.
If your household income is “barely” 100K, why would you buy a second residence?
And if your household income is “barely” 100k, then there is no way anyone is going to tax you at 80%. That’s just a ridiculous statement, Nichol.
However, if you bought a house and sold it and made a bunch of money from it- then this is obviously income and it should be taxed.
Income is income, dude. Don’t think you are special just because you watch a few episodes of flip my house or whatever.
People leave California because of the cost of housing- not because of the state’s tax system.
Nichol,
I’m afraid you abolished my sympathy for you when you started talking about your second home that you lost. Let me guess, bad mortgage?
Tex wrote:
I would point out two things:
1. Bush and Greenspan were both warned that the lax regulations in the mortgage industry could lead to a bubble.
2. While it’s easy to blame the individual for the loans, I would point out that the mortgage companies did not have to give the loans. As the saying goes “buyer beware” – the mortgage companies could have applied their own metrics to loans to make sure people were qualified, but they did not. The fact that the mortgage companies highly incentivized brokers to push risky loans doesn’t help, as well as the fact that they would immediately move them off the books.
3. The SEC was asleep at the wheel in terms of recognizing the inherit conflict with S&P and Moody’s rating bonds while being paid by the companies that created the bonds. As a result, we had Triple-AAA ratings for bonds that should have been junk.
So if we’re looking at this from an economic actor point-of-view, all actors did what they were supposed to do. If you offer free money to consumers, they will take it. If you provide no regulations for mortgage companies, they will not create their own regulations but will seek to maximum profit, and if you have a rating agency paid by a bond-issuer, you will have a lot of overrated bonds.
By this measure, then, I point the finger for the mortgage crisis squarely at the Fed who had the power to limit all of the above.
Tex wrote:
And therein lies the rub – if you move marginal tax rates to or from the extreme, there will indeed be an decrease/increase in revenue. However, shifting the tax rate by 1-5% once you are bellow, say, a 50% rate is revenue negative. This isn’t my analysis – even the CBO recognizes that that the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves.
As the Congressional Budget Office recently stated, the “best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains tax rates do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from lower rates.”
-Congressional Budget Office, “Sources of Growth and Decline in Individual Income Tax Revenues Since 1994,” May 2008, p. 11.
@ Tex Taylor
Oh yes. Bush is responsible for all evil. Forget personal accountability and blame it on the President when your own personal life falls apart from your bad decisions. Bet Bush signed the loans…and held a gun to the mortgage brokers.
No hes not responsible for all evil, but he is responsible for the current state of economic affairs. Are you going to somehow blame this on Clinton like they did 9/11.
Anyway to make it easier to own a home our boy George W. signed into law The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 making it so low income families could afford the down payment for a home. Up to $10,000 for a down payment, closing costs, rehabilitation…etc.
So instead of having these people save their money(i.e be responsible) for a down payment they are buying houses on 100% credit with the help of government aid. It’s no wonder so many houses foreclose when these people have nothing invested(i.e. their own money) they just let it go back to the bank. Now these same people are asking the government to do something to bail them out of their foreclosure.
This fiasco is a direct result of government programs (singed into law by George Bush, thereby making him responsible) such as this and banks having loose lending practices(i.e. because of deregulation by the government).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060524-6.html
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Looking at personal income tax rates in isolation of FICA payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate income taxes is almost pointless.
FICA payroll taxes are the most regressive taxes in our country, since they are a first dollar tax.
Corporate incomes tax changes affect everyone in the country, since we are all employees of companies, shareholders (directly or indirectly), or customers. For instance, raising corporate income taxes means a company has less money to spend on employee salaries and bonuses, shareholders receive smaller dividends or capital gains, and customers get stuck with price increases.
Just some “food for thought.”
wow, i will get taxed less with Mccain, I think obama just lost my vote, but i am writing Ron Paul so who cares
By that argument, corporate profits would lead to raising the salaries of employees – something which hasn’t happened during one of the periods of the largest corporate profits in history. Which is to say, if corporate taxes were cut, there is no guarantee the individual employees would see benefits. Consumers are generally not affected by corporate tax changes except in the extreme – the bigger effect on customers comes in changes in cost of goods sold (as we are all now seeing).
Now, that being said, if corporate taxes are raised, do I think that employees would be affected? It could – because the corporations might seek to continue to hold onto profits by reducing positions and/or reducing salaries. But that’s not a given – it would depend on the state of their industry. A company is not going to not hire people due to taxes if their business is growing. My issue with McCain lowering tax rates for corporations is that we can’t afford it. It also give sizable tax breaks to some of the largest corporations, including Exxon which would receive a $1.9b tax break. I would argue, given our current financial situation, that corporate taxes should remain where they are.
Actually, it’s closer to 40%. However, their % of total income rose at a greater rate, while their tax rate fell:
From the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html
how could income taxes for those bottom tiers even go down? i was under the impression that, save FICA and Social Security, pretty much anyone making under 37k or so (or whatever the poverty line is for each individual’s marital status, etc) was not paying any taxes.
that being said, i’m all for reductions in SS and FICA as well
CUT government, CUT taxes!
in 1913 the U.S. spent $1bil
Punch that into a inflation calculator and we should
be spending 21B on our gov’t in 2007.
Not 2.7 tr
Do we really need 700 military bases around the world?
Let’s talk turkey about taxes for a minute.
The gov’t has traditionally given large corporations (and therefore wealthy individuals who own the stock of these corporations) large tax breaks to “create jobs.” These corporations then send work overseas, thereby making even MORE money while actually TAKING AWAY jobs. Not only that, these large corporations also receive lucrative gov’t contracts! Therefore it’s pretty simple to pass fair tax laws. If you do business in America and have American citizens as employees, you get the best tax breaks. If you do business in America but use non-American citizens as your employees, you get a smaller tax break. If you do business outside of the U.S., you are already getting a break overall and not giving anything back to America, so NO tax breaks. It’s simple; the more you do for America, the more you save in taxes and the more America does for you.
Now, while we’re ranting about taxes, here are a couple of my pet peeves regarding taxes.
TAX ON FOOD
It isn’t that high, but that’s not the point. One might say, “So what if you to pay 2 cents on a $1.99 bag of rice?” That’s not the point. I shouldn’t have to pay ANY tax when feeding my family, for chrissake!
VOLUME OF TAXES
In Denmark, the citizens pay 50% of their income in taxes, but have many benefits, especially when they enter their 50’s. Denmark also has the world’s happiest citizens, so they are apparently doing something right with that tax money. Compare that with the U.S. who’s citizens pay an average of 31% but with many who pay 40-50%, and are NOT wealthy (and listed at #18 on the world happiness meter)! What I am saying is, it is time for fundamental tax reform, and if the Federal Reserve (which is about as federal as Fex-Ex) is abolished as it should be, this would be easy to achieve. After all the Fed is the reason we have an (illegal, BTW) income tax, to be able to pay them back for printing OUR CURRENCY for the cost of paper, ink and labor and selling back to us at face value, PLUS INTEREST. It costs $80,000 to print up $100,00,000, for example.
ABOLISH THE FED!!
Dey tuk r jerbs!! More whining from conservatives
For anyone who needs proof of why McCain’s tax plan won’t work, take a look around. It’s amazing how blind people are to history. FDR saved our economy from the great depression precisely by instituting income taxes.
I have to say, I think it’s so cute the fantasy libertarians and conservatives that we would all just be fine without government, that government causes all of our problems. It’s the most stereotypical upper-middle class whining. Too bad looks like people making over 600,000 grand won’t be able to afford the 09 BMW, and just when the 08 got a little dent in it!
It was WWII not FDR . Even Keynes later stated his economic policies are meant for shorter terms than the US Dems attempt to run it.(Great Society etc.)
inthewoods and James,
Why don’t we do each other a favor?
I think you clowns so confused and amoral, and the bridge so divided on any issue of importance, that I will truthfully admit I have no use for your type anymore, do not care what happens to you, and it is really is not worth trying to pull the country back together.
We don’t we try divesting ourselves of each other? We put a man on the moon – we can figure out how to divvy the country up fairly.
You can implement your marxism in your part of the newly formed country. We’ll remain the evil intent money grubbers and starve the poor people to death in ours.
And we’ll let the best ideas win?
Well, more accurately Alfie, it was WWII, which then led to the utter demolition of all the world’s industrial players outside of the US. High taxes would have been a good thing at that time or any time of American prosperity had it been used towards preparing the U.S. infrastructure to deal with more competition in the years ahead.
It didn’t, hence why there has been a growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country since the 70’s, when Europe and Japan began to officially bounce back from WWII.
Where did the surplus from all of those high taxes go? Military spending and fighting the commies. Not going to debate the merits of that, just going to say think about how much more diversified and strong our economy would be had we maintained strong public transportation, kept our tuition rates low, or hell, not bled social security dry.
Which proves that its not how much the taxes, but how wisely you spend them.
And Tex,
You should read ecotopia, which is essentially the same story as you just proposed.
Post on that and you all will need a new hit counter.:)
Marc,
LOL. I can honestly say I had never heard of that until you mentioned it. Is there a ecotopia lite where Conservatives and some Liberatarians can simply divest themselves of the left and you guys can freely go your merry way?
Worship the land, howl at the moon, share your food, free love, and live in your communes? And do it on your own dime? Think of the benefits…you won’t even have to worry about George Bush and the evil oil companies anymore – we’ll take them without argument.
Hopefully we can peacefully coexist in some proximity but have absolutely no bearing on each other’s lives? You guys free to do as you wish; we can choose to do the same without lefty interference?
Because frankly, I don’t think we are too far from say about 1772 – perhaps 1620 and before too long the little civil bubble is going to burst.
Separate gov’ts, separate lives, separate everything? Now I know it will take a great deal of negotiation but I would even be willing to take in the shorts one more time to be done with the left’s agenda…
Well, ecotopia was a little less howl at the moonishess than that. Basically a few left-leaning billionaires and physicists tired of a very conservative government moved to the Pacific Northwest and announced that they had made a few very nasty nuclear bombs and buried them around the US, declared the Pacific Northwest ecoptopia and told everyone to leave them alone. Everyone else dissatisfied with the government moved there, and there was a tense peace as the conservative hardliners debated whether or not there really were bombs, if there was how to counter them, blah blah blah. Meanwhile ecotopia lived on as it pleased, free because of the fear they’d instilled in their former parent government.
Oh, well here. I’ll make my proposal simple. No need to cast fear. I won’t be so elitist or evil in my intent and in my thinking – and even give people a choice; this side, or that side. I don’t care what you’re worth – I care how you think. If need be, we can split it three ways. Left, right, and moderate (whatever that means).
And I won’t even plant bombs. Leftist Dims are free to live and do as you wish. My only request is that once implemented, the left stay out of my life. If not, then there will be consequences with no legal ramifications. Like a duel with the best man winning.
That doesn’t sound so unreasonable and I would think the left would fall over themselves wanting the same.
You know, admit the system is broken – there is no repairing it, call it a truce and a draw, and simply separate?
Sounds reasonable to me…
LMAO – ok – fine – what part of the country do you want?
In all seriousness, you don’t have time for anyone that brings data to the discussion? Do you have anything at all to back up what you’re saying, or are you just howling at the moon?
I’m not advocating anything. I love America and the capitalist system – but that doesn’t mean I have to live in it with rose colored glasses or ignore significant information. And all modern societies have both socialist and capitalist aspects of their system – its just a matter of where and how they are applied.
For example, choosing to give Exxon a tax break (along with all the other oil companies) while they make record profits just seems like a dumb idea – yet Congress has done this for the past 4 years (via an old tax break that was never taken back). Choosing to bail out Bear Sterns and Fannie/Freddie shareholders is socialism at its finest, but very few talk about that from a socialist point-of-view. I’m fine talking about a pure capitalist system, but then let’s make capitalist on the way up AND the way down – which obviously didn’t happen. That’s the kind of socialism I’m against….
inthewoods,
Great nic. I hope for the children’s sake, you remain there. Are you (ed:too) frickin’ ignorant to read from above? Seconds for the slow folks…
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
I’m not advocating anything. I love America and the capitalist system
The college fund isn’t what I would call the capitalist system…
what part of the country do you want
I’ll let you have first chance. If it gets me away from the socialistic type, it’s worth it to give you first dibs…
whoop…if I’m going to insult, I need to spell correctly too/to
Thanks Marc…LOL. There is nothing more comical than the pedantic blog types.
Again, you will hold yourself to the same high standard of perfection? Kind of like the language thought police you spoke of recently?
Just helping ya out Tex, you self corrected, i just put it in the text.
And no, i rarely edit my own comments, and yes, its usually full of typographical errors. I comment on the fly and well, I just don’t care enough to correct myself.
I had received requests in the past for me to edit grammatical errors and typo’s before, so I kind of got in the habit of doing it when people self-corrected.
If you so please I’ll leave any and all future errors glaring for the world to spot the source of your few imperfections.
LOL – yes, I saw your link.
Ignorant? Did you not read the article and data I posted from the WSJ? It repeats the data you’ve cited and then points out some rather interesting information about it.
Is that english? Remain where? In a place where people look at data?
No idea what you’re talking about… I’ll get back to you on the part of the country.
I had received requests in the past for me to edit grammatical errors and typo’s before, so I kind of got in the habit of doing it when people self-corrected.
If you so please I’ll leave any and all future errors glaring for the world to spot the source of your few imperfections.
It’s your blog…feel free to correct me, when convenient. Without a preview box, you’ll have your hands full.
Oh I get it “great nickname”! And you hope I remain there! Wow! I hope for the sake of your children, that one day you learn to really look at issues and actually listen.
I’ll be honest, I only skimmed the article and didn’t read any of the comments, but I wanted to drop my two cents in: I’m tired of people (read: conservatives) whining that 1) we have the highest tax burden in the world and 2) these are the highest taxes in american history (Yes, I frequently hear both, remember that I semi-regularly listen to Right Wing Talk Radio)
First, our taxes are some of the lowest of the industrialized nations. Think ours are too high? Try Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland…..i.e. the rest of the First World. Second, since the Reagan Revolution our taxes have been quite artificially low. In the (prosperous) fifties and sixties 60%, 70%, even higher, tax rates on the highest earners were commonplace. Now billionaires pay the same rate as small business owners making several hundred thousand a year. And I, for one, think that’s wrong.
This is especially problematic when we spend money like water. Even though I dislike Milton Friedman, he was once quoted as saying, “Cutting taxes without cutting spending is just raising taxes tomorrow.” We have two presidential candidates fighting over who is going to cut taxes more despite the fact that we are running a deficit approaching $10 trillion. Our projected budget deficit for 2008-2009 alone is $600 BILLION dollars (Sorry George, I count Iraq funding, Medicare, and other ‘uncounted’ expenditures)
We are basically living on the federal economic equivalent of credit cards. Other countries hold our debts, and some day they will demand their money back. I’ve heard people tell me “The national debt doesn’t matter, it’s basically a made up figure that won’t eve get paid off anyway.” National debt sinks investor confidence, nukes the dollar (along with other factors, however), and makes us beholden to foreign powers.
Always raising or always cutting taxes is not the answer. That’s where both parties get it wrong (Though lately both parties have the same philosphy–Don’t tax and Spend A Lot). But responsible adults should realize you need to pay off debts, and that requires both tax increases and spending cuts in time of need.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are we?
I’ll make the same challenge to your brilliance that I love to make to all libs…Would you like to care to place a bet on which economic and respective tax package the WSJ will support come election time?
Republican or Dimocrat (ed:Dum)?
Oh I get it “great nickname”! And you hope I remain there! Wow!
Fast on the draw too…
Is there any liberal here, one I would define as generous with other people’s money, who can answer this question for me. I am sure I now give $1 dollar for every $2 I make to some form of local, state, federal, or ancillary tax.
Can someone point to me exactly where this investment is efficiently used, and if not, why would I think more of it the answer to our problems as many of you suggest?
I have a novel idea…
How about the government stops spending my money on worthless programs we can’t afford?
Question: which is more effective, FEMA, or the Red Cross?
Let the government do it’s job as described in the constitution, with the least amount of my money, and the citizens will do their job.
Dude, what is your f*cking issue? Were you sh*t on by liberals for your early life? You can disagree with me all the time, but making it personal like this is just childish.
Yes, the WSJ Editoral Board – not the same as the news group. See, the way it works is this: the editorial comes from Rupert, and the news comes from actual reports. Maybe you didn’t understand that? Not the sharpest tool in the shed?
And note that you’ve never addressed me calling you on the contention that “tax cuts raise revenue” – the reason is that you can’t. So you’re reduced to personal attacks.
I dunno, I kinda like a military that doesn’t overcharge and shoot civilians, a police department that doesn’t respond to calls based on profitability, a fire department that doesn’t ask for payment before they save your house, roads that are generally toll free outside of select routes, a school system that educates everyone regardless of income or intellect, nationwide libraries and archives that store classical literature and not just what sells, public universities that provide great education while keeping costs lower than private colleges, water and waste treatment plants that keep us healthy and diphtheria-free, labor regulations that make 40 hours a week the standard instead of 72, environmental laws that stopped burning rivers in ohio and dying lakes in ontario/erie
i like all of those things and millions of other services that we all take for granted each day. contrary to popular belief, the government can often provide them cheaper than the private sector, and without a bottom line profit motive they can focus on serving the community and not markets (imagine how awful fully privatized police, ambulance, and fire services would be!)
Since I mentioned public education, I already foresee the arguments about vouchers and “school choice.” Such schools defund public schools, making them more inefficient and perpetuating the charter schools; the main reason those kids get better scores and results is simple selection bias: kids who can pass academic tests to qualify for charter and magnet schools are obviously going to do better than the population average. This is just skimming out the gifted kids and letting the public schools rot.
Look at Buffalo. Of course the public schools are terrible when any parent with money sends their kids to Nichol’s or Nardin or Sacred Heart or St. Joe’s.
Full disclosure: I went to public school in Lockport from Kindergarten on. Despite my comments which are usually written fast and off the cuff, I assure I did very well in GPA, SATs, ACT, and GRE, and got into a good university. I feel I received a fine education.
Defunding public schools only worsens the problem, not solves it. The people who are behind the “school choice” movement (cough, Ron Paul types) really just want to get rid of all public education and send us back to the days when you were homeschooled, private schooled or uneducated.
“which is more effective, FEMA, or the Red Cross?”
That’s debatable. FEMA was a disaster during Katrina but they were great by all reports in the Iowa floods this summer, along with good responses to other disasters. Sometimes its the staff you put in charge, and other times its underfunding that hamstrings FEMA (If I remember correctly Congress was crabby about funding FEMA to requested levels and it was operating with low funds).
On the other hand, the Red Cross often gets criticized for inefficiency wand massive waste. When they set up the Liberty Fund for victims of 9/11, only 30% of the $547 million raised ever went to victims. The money they did distribute went to victims randomly without regard to financial necessity, some reports said that New Yorkers in swanky townhouses got money earmarked for “displaced victims.” They also called for Americans to donate blood during September 11th when it wasn’t actually needed, and millions of blood packs went unused and expired.
inthewoods (doing only the Lord knows what),
And note that you’ve never addressed me calling you on the contention that “tax cuts raise revenue” – the reason is that you can’t. So you’re reduced to personal attacks.
Well Dude (what are you, 14 years old with a skateboard and a bad hair cut?), the reason I didn’t address your issue is because it was already contained in my first post Dude. I’m not one to repeat myself for X-sport types…
As far as the personal attacks, who cares. Grow a set Marxist Dude…
Were you sh*t on by liberals for your early life?
Gee, I don’t know. Perhaps that does explain my disdain for lefty Dudes and Dudettes – that and the fact they apparently can’t fend for themselves so they need my help and my pocketbook.
FEMA is probably not the best comparison given that the agency, during Katrina, was headed up by a guy with no actual experience in emergency response.
An agency I think does a very good job is the NIH which funds basic science all over the US and has a great track record.
Lastly, let’s remember that we privatized a lot of functions during the Iraq war, and it has been no secret that fraud and corruption have been a huge problem:
“But recently, the Pentagon admitted it has a hard time accounting for how billions of your tax dollars are being spent — and the billions that may be lost to contractor waste, fraud and abuse, CBS News investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian reports. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/05/cbsnews_investigates/main2334784.shtml
Private industry can, without a doubt, be more efficient than government, but they are not without their own issues.
Jackson,
Speaking as one who sent my children to private schools, I agree that you can still get a wonderful education in many public schools. A good teacher is a good teacher; a good student, a good student.
I think what many of you proponents of public schools fail to understand is that we parents sending our children to private/parochial schools are not sending our children to just receive a better education.
We fork out many thousands of dollars to keep them away from secular leftists, with a blatant hostility to what we perceive as what represents real beauty and truth. We are diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of what you believe to be real truth.
It’s not that my children necessarily received a better education, nor even better instructors in a private school. What they did receive (for the most part) is a higher quality parent and people of like mind with a shared belief of what is most important.
I will publically admit. I did everything in my power during my children’s formative years to keep them away from the godless curriculum and pagan types running the public school system. Now that they are in college, the choice is their own. I didn’t want the modern liberal type to have any influence on my children whatsoever. And they didn’t.
If that makes me intolerant in your world, so be it. The opinions of the left mean nothing to me when it concerns raising my children.
Again still not addressing it. You were comments on plans, I’m giving you information from the IRS on what has already happened. Typical dodge from someone who can’t defend their position.
Fine – go f*ck youself. You couldn’t argue you way out of a paper bag and you use statistics like a drunk uses lamp post – to hold yourself rather than for enlightenment. You have no real arguments – you’re just a blowhard.
Since the US Government is unlikely to ever has a tax code, under either administration, to match your ideals, I’d just suggest you leave the country – that would do us all a favor.
Two edits to the above:
- “You were comments on plans” should read “You were commenting on plans”
- “is unlikely to ever has a tax code” should read “is unlikely to ever have a tax code”
“And note that you’ve never addressed me calling you on the contention that “tax cuts raise revenue” – the reason is that you can’t.”
Laffer Curve. It was already mentioned and briefly explained.
From the Wiki:
In a nutshell, after a certain point of taxation, the higher taxes are, the less revenue is recieved.
Not defending anyone, just sayin’….
Already addressed the Laffer curve – exists at extremes of the curve, but in the middle tax cuts are negative for income. See posts above.
inthewoods (molesting children),
I give you a simple graph to understand the tax structure and exactly what people are paying in real dollars. It demonstrates even to the slowest of dimwits (like you) that 50% of the folks are paying 97% of the federal taxes with a large escalation toward the top. That the rich have gotten richer is irrelevant. I don’t argue that point. There isn’t a time in American history that hasn’t happened, nor will there be.
I haven’t really argued anything more than to show the “rich” (anybody making $66K or above according to your messiah) are more than paying their fair share of federal taxes.
What I provided is a nonpartisan result period – not some hack answer from the bumbling and inept IRS dominated by rejects that can’t find a real public accounting job; the same one that can’t answer the simplest of tax questions come every April and is probably the lowest rated public org short of your Dimocratic Congress. You’d do as well to go to KKKos and get your facts (which you probably parrot anyway).
I laughed at your excuse about the WSJ knowing you a college bum that couldn’t afford to lose 10¢. Your comment was so ignorant, I thought it was parody and I let it go thinking you had to be joking. Obviously, you were not and you thought it a brilliant counter point which tells me I shouldn’t make the assumption you’re even reasonably intelligent. I now suspect you’re a troofer and an abject failure at every facet of life, desperately in need of a girlfriend.
I’m tickled a “dude” like you would suggest that I leave the country while telling me to go “F” myself – since I picture this greasy-haired bozo with body piercings doing exactly that as you sit in front of your keyboard.
Finally, why don’t you do all of America a favor and come move me since the only thing I’m in the mood for right now is to actively root for your demise? Now that would be worth a tax increase. I’d happily chip in the first $100 after your mother made the initial tender, sparing your family further embarrassment.
P.S. – “Hey Dude”, you think I really come here to be enlightened by your type? Now that is one statement that does make me snicker. Let me put it this way “Dude.” Conversing with you has been like standing in front of the monkey cage. I rattle it to watch you hop around the cage and fling your own dung.
Tex,
I imagine you, an old, washed up guy, bitter because the world doesn’t match his predisposed view of how things are. A minor man who thinks that he knows what is right in the world, a man that succeeded because his Daddy probably gave him everything and taught him to be full of such hate. So, he’s now passing this great line of thought down to his poor children, who have had to deal with such an overbearing father, have escaped to the farthest point to college on the earth.
Or maybe you’re a self-made man – someone who started his own business and now thinks he’s right about everything regardless of his total lack of knowledge. And maybe his kids love him – because they’re been so brainwashed by his nonsense for so many years that they don’t know any better.
Now I know neither of these is probably even close to the truth – because in general I do not presuppose anything about anyone who participates in a forum. But you feel perfectly comfortable coming in and shitting all over my life.
And I say all this while I’m on vacation, sitting by the pool. And unlike your picture of me, I actually work in MA for a successful business that I co-own with my business partners. It’s my 3rd successful startup. I make and have plenty of money, and I have a short, cropped haircut and I dress conservatively. I have no tattoos or piercings of any kind. I have a wife and a kid. And while I am younger than you, I’m certainly not a kid.
So I’ll say what I think you are, just based on your posts: a sad man, who thinks that he can win a conversation by yelling the loudest, like the rest of your right wing ilk.
I started out all this treating you with respect, but you clearly deserve none.
I know you don’t come here for enlightenment. That’s obvious as you have no interest in what anyone has to say that doesn’t agree with your world view. So I have no idea why you come to a site like this other than to rant. Everyone else is here to have a conversation. You – you just want to hear yourself speak.
I look forward to your next hate-fill post.
You two keep this up,
I’m getting popcorn.
because in general I do not presuppose anything about anyone who participates in a forum. But you feel perfectly comfortable coming in and shitting all over my life.
I presuppose? {giggle} Forgive the note of duplicity and non sequitor in that last bit of prose there ITW. There are two things I am absolutely sure that you’re a horrid failure: objectivity and intuition. Insulting humor doesn’t seem to be your bag either so make that three. So far, your “presupposing” couldn’t be more wrong.
Or maybe you’re a self-made man – someone who started his own business and now thinks he’s right about everything regardless of his total lack of knowledge. And maybe his kids love him – because they’re been so brainwashed by his nonsense for so many years that they don’t know any better
For brainwashed kids, I don’t know how they could be doing any better. Even so, that’s my business and my perogative to do as I wish. I’ve definitely emphasized to stay half a world away, when possible, from an awful influence like you. Hopefully, they’ve learned enough to treat you like the Bubonic plague. Mostly, I use your type as example as to “not what to be.”
For the sake of brevity, I’m in the midst of a 2nd career currently enrolled in medical school and not quite “old.” Getting there, perhaps. You haven’t been close to being right about me yet – but keep ’supposing’. It is pretty humorous.
I started out all this treating you with respect, but you clearly deserve none.
Baloney. Go reread your first post directed toward me. If that’s your idea of a respectful post, you’re even more harebrained than I dreamed. Somebody failed to teach you manners and I’m simply playing the superior intellect and worldly business owner’s own game. And because you’re a dork who doesn’t like having sand kicked in his face vis-a-vis your childhood, you don’t like being one-upped.
I know you don’t come here for enlightenment. That’s obvious as you have no interest in what anyone has to say that doesn’t agree with your world view. So I have no idea why you come to a site like this other than to rant. Everyone else is here to have a conversation. You – you just want to hear yourself speak.
Contrary to what you believe, I like to read what other people think or I wouldn’t be here. And I love to slap heads of the opponent, mostly in jest. Marc and Kate figured that much out and don’t take me too seriously. I actually kind of like them, though we have little in common. Jackson got his feelings hurt and avoids me, though I admire his bio.
In your case though, you’re such a pompous asshole and windbag, I’d just as soon rattle your cage. What you would like is everybody to bow the knee at your wisdom and bark like seals. Me? I think you are a dunce.
I look forward to your next hate-fill post.
It pains me to bring you any pleasure. I would as soon make your worthless life miserable. But since Marc is nice enough to let me post on his board while I waste the end of my summer, I felt like he needs to have a chance to finish his popcorn.
Gad,,,
prerogative; If Kate shows up, how much would she charge to proofread my rants?
I miss my wife for no other reason than what appears to be sheer poetry, apparently comes out looking more like Ebonics.
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets (ed:an) immoveable object
*an
And what, pray tell, offended you in that post? You’ve got to be kidding. You’re talking about the one that starts “I would point out two things…”? What could possibly have offended you about that? That I blamed Greenspan for the housing crisis? Or the one where I started with the line “therein lies the rub”? What could you possibly have been upset by?
So you call someone a child molester? Yeah, really funny.
Nope, I’d love to hear some valid points actually. Let’s here those.
Now that you mention it, I think this entire time I’ve been confusing you and the equally worthless James. You know how assholes all look the same?
Oh well, I would have apologized had you pointed that out before the FU comment, but since you’ve been a complete bite from the fourth post on, just call me prophetic in my responses.
Nope, I’d love to hear some valid points actually. Let’s here those.
Okay, you want valid points – I’ll give you valid points.
Now, if I’m not mistaken ITW and this is from memory, I believe MA has a line where you can donate additional funds on your federal taxes.
Pray tell, how much did you l did you donate in the years 2004-2007 above and beyond what was required?
Why don’t you surprise me and donate most of the proceeds from your wildly successful business partnerships and startups? Since you being incredibly successful and all, and feeling like you don’t pay enough, why don’t you foot the federal bill for five other families?
Show me your generosity…with your own money.
And when you can prove your enormous generosity with your own bundle of money, I will humbly submit myself to your self-proclaimed piety.
Oh Tex, I don’t charge that much; just the satisfaction of knowing that I am grammatically superior, or just more of a perfectionist than most. I’ve been following the comments, but usually someone beats me to the punch before I want to say something, so I’ve just been watching everyone sling mud. Being that I haven’t decided or know as much as I want to about the candidates tax policies, I’m staying out of this one until I can get that moment clarity. Until then, I hope everyone enjoys the debate.
And I obviously have my own typos. Forgive me, its 2 am and I just got back from a night out.
Should say “Being that I haven’t decided or know as much as I want to about the candidates’ tax policies, I’m staying out of this one until I can get that moment of clarity.”
And how much does the illustrious Tex Taylor give to charity?? Oh snap.
Well Jackson,
If you include my tithing, about 10% of my take home pay goes to charity and has for years. In the earlier years, most of it went to church tithing, but when I got fed up with the bickering and quit going to a formal service, all of it was directed to more horrid causes.
I give to those awful Christian causes, like mend crisis pregnancy centers and a place here in my hometown specifically built to care for handicapped children where my youngest daughter volunteers. I give to Big Brothers and Sisters of which I was a Big Brother for a time. I gave 1% of my salary deducted from my paycheck to United Way thru work.
Now my wife, being equally and horrifically conservative but Catholic, prefers to give to Meals on Wheels and Catholic Charities. Nasty group, they are.
I made one big donation (for me) to On Wings of Eagles which assists needy Jews in making aliyah (immigrating to Israel).
For three years, while taking the necessary prerequisites for medical school, I volunteered at a hospital in the emergency room. Part of that self-serving to pad a resume but needless to say, I was still there.
And as I have said here once previously here on this wonderful blog, old and vile Tex was chosen as the neighbor of the year in his residential neighborhood – but only because they don’t know me as well as you do. For some reason I’ve always liked to serve which is a large reason for me becoming a doctor. It’s a weakness.
Of course, I could give more if one out of every two dollars wasn’t taken by inefficient thieves known as our local, state and federal government. Or if I had not chosen to send my kids to private schools to remove them from your wonderfully successful midst, but that’s not important.
And would you like to share your angelic nature with us Jackson as you walk on water?
Kate,
Oh Tex, I don’t charge that much; just the satisfaction of knowing that I am grammatically superior.
LOL. Old Tex knows when he has met his better. Buttercup, you don’t even know how much better you are; grammatically, that is. And if I wasn’t the poor medical student, I might take you up on that offer.
And if you can cook well, I might ask you to marry me before I leave this week.
Tex, regardless of our differences, I want to say that I really respect all of your charitable work – great stuff. Interesting that you’re becoming a doctor – I can imagine you becoming infuriated with the insurance process, both private and public. I have two friends that are doctors and they really hate it. But it is very much a calling.
I never said they were “wildly successful” – I said I had and made plenty of money. My first business was sold around 1992 was somewhat successful – and I paid a large amount of tax – that included income and capital gains. The second business was again, somewhat successful and sold in 1999, and again I paid a large tax bill. My third business was a dude and I sold it at a loss in 2003. Then there was a dry spell where I worked for a company in NYC before I started the current business in late 2005. All of these happened in NYC, not in MA. I moved back to MA in 2006.
But it doesn’t reduce your point – but honestly, I didn’t know you could do that. Not saying I would have done it, but I wasn’t aware. In reviewing the 2007 Federal and State income tax forms, I don’t see any place for such a contribution.
I did donate additional money to the Mass Military Family fund and the Mass AIDS fund.
I also donated our stimulus check to the Mass Veterans organization which I’ve been very involved with for the last 2 years. I also volunteer there helping Vets in their attempts to get back to them back to some form of normal life. Previously, while in NYC, I donated my Bush tax cut to another charity – the Red Cross for 9/11 victims. I lost two friends in the Towers, and couldn’t believe we were cutting taxes in a time of war. Overall, I give about 2% of my after tax income away – so not nearly as good as you Tex.
As I stated in an earlier post, I’m not in favor of any tax cuts – regardless of who gets elected. Given the deficit and the war, it makes no sense, unless they are willing to cut back government – but the Republicans had no interest in doing so even when they controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. I long for a return to the Goldwater Republicans.
The part of McCain’s plans that I don’t agree with is cutting taxes on corporations – because he has no plan for how to pay for it. His argument is that by cutting taxes, we will see increased revenue to the government, and that isn’t the case except when we’re looking at extremes in tax rates and we’re not at an extreme.
Okay ITW,
I’ll apologize for being a turd. That was a civil post and I commend you too for your charity. About the charitable work – it’s something I graciously do because I get something out of it in return. I believe somehow I am making a difference and I was taught that from somebody far wiser than I am. I have tried to set an example for my children which they’ve pretty much followed suit (hopefully). One is down in N.O. right now helping to rebuild homes for the summer without pay. Jackson asked, so I answered.
I think all taxes should be cut. I don’t think groceries should be taxed, being that I just returned from the grocery store. If politicians were serious about helping “the little guy”, they could stop that tomorrow and I mean everywhere. And I think all services should be reduced because I don’t feel our resources are being used efficiently; Homeland Security included. I believe individuals know better as a general rule about how to manage their money. I think government should be a safety net only in the extreme – disability or undue hardship being two. But if you’re able bodied, you should do something to earn your bread and the government should assist in finding the work.
You walk from your mortgage, fine. But I would guarantee you would be living in an apartment for the next 20 years if you can’t pay cash because your days of obtaining credit are over with. I’m a big believer in personal responsibility.
Not to sound cold, but I don’t think the 9/11 victims should have received anything more than what any victim from any tragedy was due. If you wonder why, here’ s the reason. The victims in the OKC bombing received nothing more than if they had died in an accident (that I’m aware of and I was there shortly after it happened). And I don’t like it when one group receives special compensation. Both calamities were equally tragic. Nothing worse than watching a toddler carried out dead with broken body so I can make a pretty good case that OKC in some ways more horrific.
As far as the corporations, I can’t promise what they would do if they received a tax cut. Being a shareholder, I would expect part of it invested with an adequate return on investment; part of it applied to current employees – the rest to hire. I don’t need my dividends raised on account of a tax cut. I believe every corporation should be a good corporate citizen.
I do know this which nobody on this blog has ever attempted to answer the disconnect when asked.
One of Obama’s biggest election promises is to remove the cap on FICA. We all know SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are going broke. But Obama’s campaign manager, when asked about the biggest problems for the working class in America face, said that biggest problem that the working stiffs face today is that wages haven’t kept up with inflation. Okay, fair enough.
Now somebody explain to me when corporations or small business owners like yourself have an additional 13-15% tax hike on any wage over 100K (and as you are well aware, that is neither rich nor rare), what makes Obama and the left crowd think corporations are going to increase wages substantially?
I’ll tell you what will happen. People will lose jobs, benefits will be cut, and wages will be frozen. Obama’s economic plans are the proverbial “emperor has no clothes.”
There are two things I completely agree with you about. And I am a shareholder in both large and small petroleum – including Exxon and BP. They don’t need corporate welfare. That should be nixed. And I too am alarmed at what I perceive in this country of quickly becoming haves and have nots. Many people who have are not stepping up to the plate to assist like you do.
Capitalism is the best of economic systems. But it does require a few rules to operate effectively. And one of those is fairness. We often times fall short in America.
Take care and good luck in the business.
I’ll offer some clarity on MA tax options. The commonwealth allows those who just don’t think the illegal tax we pay (Not the 5% voted on by the people but denied us) can elect to pay close to 6%. It actually has a handful of people that do it but otherwise it’s a joke.
Haha Tex, Just to let you know I can cook well, but I am a vegetarian. And before you haurang me for being a liberal animal lover, it is for health reasons; I haven’t had heart burn since I stopped eating delicious flesh (Oh do I miss a good Filet Mignon!). Also, I’ve heard from meat and slaughterhouse inspectors that they will also never eat meat again after being in some places, not for ethics, but for poor standards. This frightened me when I ate meat, but living in a rural community, it was really easy to obtain meat I “knew.”
However, as a liberal fem, I’m not interested in polygamy;)
ITW,
I should have added that my wife and I are far from rich. I feel like we’ve been blessed but rich – not hardly. I’ve seen statistics talking about net worth and such. And I suppose after reading those, we’d be in the top tier. The problem is, I never trust what I read because I have a hard time believing about anything I read anymore when it comes to money ‘experts’. Call it a burgeoning cynicism and personally knowing a few of the blowhards.
But if what I have read is really true (ie negative savings or no investment in 401k when offered), then we have more problems as a collective than our tax structure. There is little doubt where I live, people have to be living beyond their means. Everyone seems to ‘own’ a 3,500+ sq foot home. Personally, the amount of consumer debt scares me far more than our national debt.
There is one thing I adamantly disagree with most Republicans about and in this case do agree with Obama. We must conserve. I don’t think it asking too much to ask Americans to start carpooling, get a car with better gas mileage, inflate the tires, turn up the thermostat, or ride a bike.
In this case, call me a liberal because if we don’t start conserving, everything else is for not. Score one for your side because Obama is right and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh completely wrong. In their own unique way, people that are driving the gas hogs for the sake of being “large” are aiding and abetting our enemy. Like my mom was fond of saying, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
I have argued this point to death with my own comrades. They think me a pinko for believing so. I think them the foolish.
My wife and I have some money because we both held professional jobs for twenty years and accumulated a fair amount of 401k and pension fund stuff. We bought a reasonable house, not spectacular but comfortable and paid for it in 15 years. Because the market has dropped, so have we (a bunch). Until today, we owed nobody anything – but after buying a new car this afternoon (better gas mileage), I can’t say that anymore. That’s three cars in four years (two daughers now driving) and this time, trying to pay two tuitions, entrance to medical school and the day-to-day necessities, no could do.
If I led you to believe we are rich, well I shouldn’t have. We started with little (I was worth less than a $100 when I moved away from home after college years ago and learned the hard way one time not to carry a credit card balance) and will probably end the same way.
Now that I’m on my soap box, I’ll say one last thing to a complete set of strangers. I decided some time back after not feeling poor anymore, the accumulation of wealth and things pretty unfulfilling. Relationships with people are far more important than being rich. And as far as giving; doesn’t matter the percent you give. If it is a sacrifice for the benefit of someone else, it is always commendable.
Tex,
I think you have restated, with personal experience, the things I have been trying to say over the past few weeks (about consumerism, materialism, etc.). Your lessons in the last paragraph are things my parents have taught me by example my entire life and what I’ve always believed.
Tex, I don’t wear things on my lapel or brag. I used to do a strict 10% tithe to my church, and I stopped that when I became disillusioned with the church. On the 3000 to 4000 dollars I lately make during summers and minimal part time student jobs I usually try to give 5-10% gross earnings to charity. Sometimes things come up and I can’t give as much as I’d like, such as having to pay emergency dental work out of pocket (insurance wrote me a check for $39 for 500 dollars of work) and covering rent payments when my financial aid got messed up and didn’t disburse. I am the sort of “naive bleeding heart liberal” who doesn’t think twice about giving $5-10 to the Salvation army bells (and other similar man-on-the-street charities) every time I walk by.
A good charity I recently heard of and donated to is Rural Area Medical who go around the country giving free medical, dental, vision, and veterinary care. You can visit at RAMusa.org
More than money I give time. I am an Eagle Scout, and was very active in community service through the Scouts, both with my Eagle project and more routine volunteerism. I was also in a co-ed service fraternity (more of a service club, really, it wsn’t Greek) called Alpha Phi Omega.
I try to live the principles of 1 Corinthians 13, Pistis Elpis and Agape. Obviously, I’m human, and young, and stupid, so I often fall short. But I do my best, and think that wearing charity on your shoulder is tacky. But if people ask I’ll tell them.
You may be young but you are not stupid. None of you that I have argued with are. You do well to live by that principle. I also admire Eagle Scouts of which “I” was too foolish to recognize the value of until too late. I wish I had done the same because it would have real value now that I’m older.
Time is more important than money in the value of giving IMHO because it requires more of a personal sacrifice.
You may have misunderstood me Jackson. While I poke you, it’s mostly in jest to make you mad and make you think. I challenge you because I think your exposure much too one sided and that blinds even the brightest. I actually admire your bio and think you will do yourself proud.
I have no doubt one day you will probably surpass my achievements because you’re in many ways brighter than I was at your age.
As far as being charitable, I don’t advertise it but you asked. I believe in giving to be noticed, not only tacky but pharisaical.
Good luck in Vet School. It’s an honorable profession and one that I couldn’t do because I don’t have the stomach. Too much of a softy for God’s creatures, man excluded.
Finally one small bit of advice. Take it for what it is worth. I too am disillusioned by the church. But don’t make the mistake of doubting the infallibility of the Truth because of the fallibility of the flock. Ponder that if when you get the time.
Thank you for your kind comments. I agree with everything you said. And for what it’s worth, I now consider myself a “secular Christian.” Most people think that is an oxymoron or a falsehood or whatever. But like one of my literary heroes, Kurt Vonnegut, I think the words of Jesus, in particular the Sermon on the Mount, are some of the most profound pieces of wisdom, secular or religious, that humans have produced. Additionally, the Bible, when read with an understanding that it is not 100% literal, but the poetic records and teachings of an ancient people, can be quite enlightening.
As far as the Eagle Scout, my biggest mentor in Scouts was a Scoutmaster who never made it to Eagle as a teen. He stopped at Life then got into cars, jobs, girls, etc (I got into those too, to a lesser extent than he, but did my best to finish the program). Also, my dad was the one who told me I should join Scouts in the first place because he never did and had regrets about it. I recommend if you have any sons or friends with sons, that you get them involved in the BSA and encourage them to go all the way. It is certainly a valuable organization that shapes young boys in the ways of hard work, frugality, honor, service, and respect for nature.
Unfortunately I don’t think the past 8 years have given us a great example of what corporations do when given additional cash. They tend to pass it onto shareholders and executives and not to the lower-level workers. This makes sense given who they report to – from an economic actor point-of-view, I think they are acting as they should. The whole idea of being a good corporate citizen is, in my opinion, a PR game. Exxon spends 1% of total income on alternative energy – yet from the commercials they run you’d think it was a lot more. Why don’t they spend money on it? Because it potentially threatens their position, and it’s probably got a shitty rate-of-return.
This is a generalization – but I find that the Right is willing to give corporations the benefit of the doubt, and government the opposite. Now the Left is basically the opposite. I seek a middle ground where we could have varying economic interests in a corporation that would cause it to act like a good citizen. I’m not necessarily talking about government regulation either – I’m talking about external board members that are truly independent. I’m sure there are other ways of doing it as well that I’m not thinking of. A guy I met at a party who took his company public said to me “the company’s soul has been sold” – what he meant was that he knew full well that he would be unable to make the kind of decisions that he had made in the past.
I agree with you on FICA. Just raising the cap is a bad idea.
But I don’t think there is any way he’ll get that passed, in my opinion, without lowering the rate in some way. Just my opinion – but the blue-dog dems will never let that pass through the Senate.
Totally agree – as Milton Friedman used to say, markets are fantastic, but they can produce outcomes which we don’t necessarily want or wish for – those are the outcomes we need to be aware of.
I couldn’t agree more – I mean, hell, they’re called “conversatives”
. In all seriousness, America needs to work on this. I was not surprised that it took large increases in the cost of energy for most Americans to wake up to this – we tend to only address issues that have a burning platform. But I do find it funny that a lot of the people that classically argue for the benefits of a free market – namely the ability to self-correct – are the ones arguing that we need to “break” the free market in various ways. Such is politics. The idea that drilling today will affect gas prices is, in my opinion, political nonsense. This is not to say that drilling will have no affect, but certainly not on the short-term time horizon.
Agreed – when I left NYC, I was working closely with hedge funds and definitely in accumulation mode, but neither my wife nor I were happy. We moved back to the Boston area to start a family because her family (mom and dad) are close by, as well as her sister, and I also have a huge bunch of friends.
The only aspect of capitalism that ever really “gets me down” is not that the CEOs make huge sums of money – and while they all give away large sums of money to charity, there is a just such a push to have things that they really don’t need. It’s their money, but I just find it a little French Monarchy. My wife and myself are committed that if we were to make a large sum of money, we would spend most of the rest of our lives giving it all away – I’d even want to minimize the money left for the kids so they learn to depend on themselves.
Diatribe over! I’m off for a few days (out of the reach of the internet), so I will talk to you all in the future.
BTW, Tex, I forgot to apologize as well – sorry about the comments.
Glad you two patched it up….
Also, Tex, what was with the psuedo-cryptic comment about possibly seeing less of you? Med school firing back up?
I do say we’ve come quite accustomed to your presence here, Kate even mentioned you by name in a blog. I do hope that you swing by occasionally to put us whippersnappers into place.
inthewoods, you’re new here, but you’re one of those controversial contrarians as well, and as you guys always seem to fire up the talk here, you’re also more than welcome to come back.
Appreciate it Marc – I’ll be back once I’m done with my vacation.
Marc,
Afraid so Marc – about medical school. In fact, I had made a promise to myself last night that would be the last of the posts…but here I am. And I thank you for the good time.
I do enjoy a challenge and a good argument. And for a bunch of no good “libs”, I must admit all of you have in the spirit of debate, been more than fair.
I will try to stop back sometime after school starts just to fire things back up – one of my few talents.
ITW,
Obviously, my tags really suck! Marc, I won’t have my feelings hurt if you change that last post.
ITW,
BTW, Tex, I forgot to apologize as well – sorry about the comments.
LOL. Forget it. I actually thought some of it pretty funny. I would have thought you crazy if you didn’t respond with some animosity!
(Stealing a little time away – found an internet connection – wife hasn’t noticed yet to tell me to get the hell off. I wrote this last night.)
I’m afraid, my friend, I must call you on a post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy on this point. The fact that oil dropped after the President lifted the ban on offshore drilling is coincidental with the drop, but it is not clear whether or not it caused the drop. Remember that Congress has not approved anything, and even then the individual States may decide they don’t want it (Florida and California come to mind). And I agree with you about Semgroup. I don’t think the Edouard will cause prices to rise – too small a storm.
As a long time member of the Wall Street crowd, and having talked to lots and lots of traders on the Street, I believe there are three primary causes to the run-up in oil:
1. Fundamental: indeed we have an issue with having enough oil. There is not much in the way of “slack” supply out there.
2. New market participants: We now have hedge funds, mutual funds and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) all able to invest in commodities. Mutual funds and ETFs are long-only vehicles (for the most part), therefore, they can only be long the commodities. With the rise in public interest in commodities, these have been bid up requiring these funds to go buy more commodity futures. Hence, rising prices.
3. The value of the dollar: the dollar has been crushed under President Bush, due in part to huge deficit increase. Oil is priced in dollars. Therefore, as the dollar goes down, the price of oil will rise on world markets. If oil were priced in year 2000 dollars it would be around $80/barrel – still high but not nearly as high as it is now.
The last one is particularly important right now. Wall Street’s major players all have/had a similar trade on: short dollar, long commodities and specifically, oil. This has shown up in the correlation between oil and the dollar.
This is where the “speculators” play.
Here’s a chart:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/17693/oil-dollar.png
Now even this is correlation, but I think there is a lot more evidence to support this theory.
So why is oil falling now? Multiple reasons:
1. Fundamental: Falling demand – anywhere you look, demand has fallen. The number of miles driven is down, ridership on public transit is up to all time highs, military use of oil is down (that’s new!), and airline flights are down 10%. So definitely some demand destruction going on.
2. The dollar “appears” to be stabilizing: the dollars seems to be reaching a bottom – with interest rates rising, the potential of an ECB cut, and the feeling that the next move for the Fed will be a raise – it looks better for the dollar vs. other major currencies. As a result, we are seeing the dollar short, oil/commodities long trade being unwound (at least until the next shock).
3. Public is losing money on energy trades, causing them to leave Commodity-oriented mutual funds and ETFs, causing the funds to sell commodity futures. This is what is called “the crowded trade”.
Anyhoo – just some rambling thoughts from a reformed Wall Streeter.
(ok, wife back, gotta go, seeya).
ITW,
Good to see you again. I too am wasting time waiting on my school.
Here goes why I believe your argument holds little reason:
Are we sure the blockquote thing is working properly? This time I checked myself before submittal…
block quotes on wordpress always screw up, or at least I have always had formatting issues. If you tell me when your narrative begins I will attempt to fix it.
That’s okay Marc. I’ll go back to using italics. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind.
Which may have already happened anyway.
Oh I think speculation was part of it – I was just pointing out where the speculators were getting their cash.
But other things have caused the price to rise as well. Price shocks – Iraq was more of a mess, Iran was in the news more. All leading to a classic “blow-off” top that traders love to see – everybody on one side of the boat as The Economist prints the cover that says something like “No More Oil”. Then what starts to happen is a shift from the institutional knowledge to the retail knowledge. Ordinary people are buying oil, while the institutions are getting out. Retail speculators replace institutional specs. It is a classic cycle.
While I agree that correlation not equivalent to causation, I also have the ability to connect the dots…add to the fact there has actually been a slight decrease in demand over the same time frame, so assuming constant supply, if anything the price of oil should have decreased accordingly since March (and I’m aware of inelastic demand thingy).
Well, all I can say is that markets, at the end of a run, behave very, very extremely. This is because you tend to have everyone on one side of the boat, so when it comes to time to head for the exits (to mix metaphors), everyone tries to leave at the same time. So, that creates larger, quicker down moves than the up moves.
But don’t get me wrong Tex, I think speculators certainly did drive up prices. I just think the reason oil came down, was because those speculators realized it was a top (at least for the short/medium term) and got out – not because Bush announced something that’s going to affect the market in 10 years. To a Wall Street trader, thinking 10 years out is like thinking of going to the moon. The only time they think about anything 10 years out is when they consider the compound interest on their own money.
To the energy trader (meaning a trader that specializes in energy trading rather than a general trader), he or she would be able to instantly see that the impact of such drilling would be a long time out (there is no futures contract for 10 years out), and would have a minimum impact because the oil would be moved back onto the global marketplace.
Italics are excellent by the way – they make what you type look so sinister.
ITW,
Really, I can disagree with much of that. I didn’t get into the reasons for the speculation; just the fact it is much of the cause in the drop. Oil has in someways, become our new gold standard.
However, knowing fully well how reactionary traders are being that I worked with them all those years, I do feel that any perceived motion in the markets is exaggerated to the extreme because 40-60 bucks of that was fluff (IMO). Throw in the geopolitical events and uncertainty, well it’s more like throwing darts anymore.
I had predicted oil to rise to day (excuse of hurricane) and it fell another $4.00. Which shows me two things: (1) There’s still fudge in the system; (2) My timing isn’t worth a crap.
While receiving my MBA many moons ago, we were always taught that the market a “predictor” of things to come. Baloney! It’s so reactive to be laughable.
Good post…and one I won’t argue.
I will be in the 1% that is taxed more heavily by Obama and I say that’s ok with me I live in the greatest country in the world and because of this, I have the opportunity to make the amount of money that I do; I have no problem giving some more back. I give more than what I’m taxed every year to charities.
Your Washington Post link is no good. Please fix this. Thank you. Good Article! Like your site!
“People who make under $80,000 are too stupid to understand taxes anyway”
-John McCain
i like Obama
Some of you have real issues with anyone earning more than you do. 120K is a lot of money is some parts of the country and survival wages in other parts. I had a house worth 140K where I lived which, in my cousin’s neck of the woods would be 249K and which (In Silicon Valley’s haeyday) would have been a cool million.
Someone’s sister sends back food that doesn’t meet her standards and that is a FAULT??? I suppose if you got over/undercooked food, your car repair was less than perfect, and your doctor did an “okay” job on your surgery you would not complain because you do not beleive you are worthe it. , on the other hand, would complain. I want what I pay for. Maybe you are not doing as well as your sister because you were content to pay mor for a crappy house which cost you later in thoudsands of repairs, or a doctor whose diagnosis was so-so necessitating more trips to more doctors . . . maybe you get all this through welfare (MY tax dollars).
I am FAR FAR from well-to-do but those who have the great salaries, have saved or invested and spent wisely and now have second homes should be envied.
Your SOUR GRAPES attitude is pitiable.