PDA

View Full Version : Obama on CapGains, Tax Rates, and His Ideas


HonestChieffan
03-28-2008, 09:37 AM
This is chilling. This sort of approach is frightening to anyone on a fixed income with their 401K savings on the line or who is living off the proceeeds of a lifetime of saving.

Here is the link to the entire transcript. If you have stocks, savings, a 401K or ever plan to have your savings available in your retirement...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html

dirk digler
03-28-2008, 09:44 AM
Raising taxes IMO is going happen whether we like it or not.

I don't know if you have read the ultra conservative Glenn Beck's $58 trillion dollar asteroid article but even he says taxes are going to have to be raised.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

According to the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustees report (and I use that term loosely since it has the word "trust" in it) released earlier this week, the economic asteroid will first make impact in the year 2019 when the Medicaid trust fund becomes insolvent.
Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact.

pikesome
03-28-2008, 09:48 AM
Raising taxes IMO is going happen whether we like it or not.

I don't know if you have read the ultra conservative Glenn Beck's $58 trillion dollar asteroid article but even he says taxes are going to have to be raised.

I'm sure we're going to get the best of both worlds, higher taxes and lower benefits.

I can't believe people want to give this group of jokers more money and more responsibility. :banghead:

dirk digler
03-28-2008, 09:52 AM
I'm sure we're going to get the best of both worlds, higher taxes and lower benefits.

I can't believe people want to give this group of jokers more money and more responsibility. :banghead:

Honestly I don't think it is going to matter because we are going to have to do it or this country is going to go broke.

pikesome
03-28-2008, 09:54 AM
Honestly I don't think it is going to matter because we are going to have to do it or this country is going to go broke.

Can we not hand them control of the Health Care industry?

The idea they'll do better than what we have is ludacris, history seems to say the exact opposite.

Chief Henry
03-28-2008, 09:55 AM
Can we not hand them control of the Health Care industry?

The idea they'll do better than what we have is ludacris, history seems to say the exact opposite.

But its going to be FREE HEALTH CARE.

pikesome
03-28-2008, 09:57 AM
But its going to be FREE HEALTH CARE.

You get what you pay for.

And it most certainly won't be free.

It'll be run just like SS.

And that should fill you and your kids with fear.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2008, 09:58 AM
Putting the political differences aside for a minute, forget Hillary, Obama, and McCain.

We have operated under a tax code that was set up a number of years back to allow all working folks to have IRA's, then 401K's, and other iterations of the same and in last addition, the Roth IRA. All are basically set up in a manner that allows all workering people to save money for retirement and to in its end result take a huge load off of SS and are set up in a manner that rewards the saver...no matter the tax bracket or income level, and that rewards the behavior of not pulling the money out untill you reach retirement age.

That said, we have an issue with taxes no doubt, but somehow we need to realize the impact on all levels of wage earners and all savers when you mess with cap gains and retirement savings.

Every candidate needs to be watched like a hawk. Pelosi has said some of the most wacked out stuff on this of anyone. But Obama has crossed a lot of lines in this interview that scare me for the sake of my son and any young person who is saving from paychecks for that retirement in the future.

Chief Henry
03-28-2008, 10:03 AM
You get what you pay for.

And it most certainly won't be free.

It'll be run just like SS.

And that should fill you and your kids with fear.



But its going to be FREE HEALTH CARE...and thats all that counts :shake:

pikesome
03-28-2008, 10:07 AM
But its going to be FREE HEALTH CARE...and thats all that counts :shake:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

BucEyedPea
03-28-2008, 10:12 AM
Honestly I don't think it is going to matter because we are going to have to do it or this country is going to go broke.

The country as in the individuals or the state?
I assure you with our expensive hi-tech care, if individuals are going broke then the govt will too. They have more low-tech inexpensive care in Europe.

The govt created this crisis. So less govt is the solution.

wazu
03-29-2008, 12:11 AM
Woohoo! Increasing capital gains tax from 15% to 28% oughtta make sure all those baby boomers don't get too comfortable! Give us that 13% more before you retire! All people who own stock, mutual funds, 401Ks, etc, are rich and evil and should give the government a larger cut.

The line between the federal government and organized crime gets blurrier every day.

Guru
03-29-2008, 12:24 AM
But its going to be FREE HEALTH CARE...and thats all that counts :shake:

Nothing is free.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 11:06 AM
One thing that bothers me about Obama's economic vision (and that of most democrats and even some Republicans) is that he sees the economy as consumer driven. That's backward thinking in the world of globalization where the US market continues to shrink as a percentage of the global market. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can tax cut our way to prosperity at all, but we surely can't do it by cutting taxes primarily on what Obama describes as "middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans". The primary issue facing us in terms of our economic future is whether or not we will be able to produce competitive products for the global market not how much we consume.

chiefforlife
03-29-2008, 11:20 AM
One thing that bothers me about Obama's economic vision (and that of most democrats and even some Republicans) is that he sees the economy as consumer driven. That's backward thinking in the world of globalization where the US market continues to shrink as a percentage of the global market. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can tax cut our way to prosperity at all, but we surely can't do it by cutting taxes primarily on what Obama describes as "middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans". The primary issue facing us in terms of our economic future is whether or not we will be able to produce competitive products for the global market not how much we consume.

The guy that explained the 40 billion dollar deal for air refueling planes that was given to Grumman instead of Boeing had very similar concerns. Not only competitive products but larger industry such as this deal. I agree Patteeu, This should be a huge concern for anyone wanting to improve the economy.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2008, 12:12 PM
One thing that bothers me about Obama's economic vision (and that of most democrats and even some Republicans) is that he sees the economy as consumer driven. That's backward thinking in the world of globalization where the US market continues to shrink as a percentage of the global market.
Well, factually, an economy is consumer-driven except where govt intervenes to make it driven for social-equality-justice purposes. Even then it'll just go black-market if that goes too far. By Republicans I hope you don't mean Miseans. Because that is one of the central tenets of Misean, aka free-market, true capitalist markets.

banyon
03-29-2008, 12:19 PM
One thing that bothers me about Obama's economic vision (and that of most democrats and even some Republicans) is that he sees the economy as consumer driven. That's backward thinking in the world of globalization where the US market continues to shrink as a percentage of the global market. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can tax cut our way to prosperity at all, but we surely can't do it by cutting taxes primarily on what Obama describes as "middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans". The primary issue facing us in terms of our economic future is whether or not we will be able to produce competitive products for the global market not how much we consume.

I also agree with the bolded part entirely, even if you didn't say it in terms sufficiently friendly to Mises-speak.

patteeu
03-29-2008, 01:24 PM
Well, factually, an economy is consumer-driven except where govt intervenes to make it driven for social-equality-justice purposes. Even then it'll just go black-market if that goes too far. By Republicans I hope you don't mean Miseans. Because that is one of the central tenets of Misean, aka free-market, true capitalist markets.

If you believe our economy is going to continue to be driven by consumption as globalization continues to have a greater effect, I do include you and any other like-minded Miseans in with "most democrats and even some Republicans". I think it's more likely, though, that you just don't understand what I'm talking about and are using "consumer-driven" in some completely unrelated way that I'm having trouble figuring out.

I'll give one very simplified example of what I mean and I'll try to make it somewhat related to the Obama taxation philosophy expressed in the OP article.

Let's assume that we have a good-sized US company named USAco that makes umbrellas (or whatever other product you want to imagine). Let's say that that company is on the verge of deciding to move it's operation to South Whereveristan because it's global competitiveness is slipping relative to it's foreign competitor FOREIGNco and the after-tax cost of doing business in Whereveristan is slightly lower than it is here. Our government policy makers are planning to implement a tax cut but they aren't exactly sure what kind of tax cut makes the most sense. They can either give some "much needed" middle and working-class relief so that those people can consume more or they can cut corporate tax rates. If they give relief to middle and working-class people, it's conceivable that they may spend some of that money on USAco products, but some of that additional consumption is going to go to FOREIGNco too. OTOH, if they cut corporate taxes, the entire benefit goes to USAco and none of it goes to FOREIGNco.

In the first scenario, it might not be enough to keep USAco from relocating overseas, which would have the additional impact of putting USAco's employees out of work and reducing their ability to consume further. In the second scenario, you have a better chance of keeping USAco in the US and you might even induce FOREIGNco to move here because you've lowered the after-tax cost of business for companies operating out of the US. If this happens, new jobs will be created here by FOREIGNco and the ability of Americans to consume will increase.

Warning: this is a supply-side idea so agree with it at your own peril

chiefforlife
03-29-2008, 01:29 PM
Well done Patteeu.
The question will be at that point do people want the immediate tax relief for themselves or will they be smart enough to understand that option 2 benefits the entire country.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2008, 04:02 PM
If you believe our economy is going to continue to be driven by consumption as globalization continues to have a greater effect, I do include you and any other like-minded Miseans in with "most democrats and even some Republicans". I think it's more likely, though, that you just don't understand what I'm talking about and are using "consumer-driven" in some completely unrelated way that I'm having trouble figuring out.
I said consumer driven...I did not say "consumption."
Do you know what I mean by consumer driven?
I mean businesses must supply goods and services people actually want and need at a price most can afford or they'd be out of business. This includes setting the price. If a widget is too high, enough won't buy...so it's worth nothing. That's the difference between consumer driven and consumption.

I'll give one very simplified example of what I mean and I'll try to make it somewhat related to the Obama taxation philosophy expressed in the OP article.

Let's assume that we have a good-sized US company named USAco that makes umbrellas (or whatever other product you want to imagine). Let's say that that company is on the verge of deciding to move it's operation to South Whereveristan because it's global competitiveness is slipping relative to it's foreign competitor FOREIGNco and the after-tax cost of doing business in Whereveristan is slightly lower than it is here. Our government policy makers are planning to implement a tax cut but they aren't exactly sure what kind of tax cut makes the most sense. They can either give some "much needed" middle and working-class relief so that those people can consume more or they can cut corporate tax rates. If they give relief to middle and working-class people, it's conceivable that they may spend some of that money on USAco products, but some of that additional consumption is going to go to FOREIGNco too. OTOH, if they cut corporate taxes, the entire benefit goes to USAco and none of it goes to FOREIGNco.

In the first scenario, it might not be enough to keep USAco from relocating overseas, which would have the additional impact of putting USAco's employees out of work and reducing their ability to consume further. In the second scenario, you have a better chance of keeping USAco in the US and you might even induce FOREIGNco to move here because you've lowered the after-tax cost of business for companies operating out of the US. If this happens, new jobs will be created here by FOREIGNco and the ability of Americans to consume will increase.

Warning: this is a supply-side idea so agree with it at your own peril

I posted to a portion of your earlier post, in fact bolded it, not your entire post because I did not disagree with latter parts of it. I don't agree with Obama on such things.

That being said, I don't see this as a strictly supply-side case either.

SBK
03-29-2008, 08:14 PM
Am I the only one that thinks if we get Obama and a democrat majority in the house and senate investment money is going to flee this country like the plague and we're going to enjoy a depression?

The problem with our treasury is not how much they take in, it's what they spend. They need to lower spending by so much that they can lower taxes as well. This would be a path to prosperity. Raising taxes will result in higher spending, which will improve nothing, but keep making everything worse.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2008, 08:18 PM
I think we may be headed into a depression already. I think Obama might just give us New Deal Part 2 and be in it much longer just like under FDR. But I don't see the GOP saving us either.

pikesome
03-29-2008, 08:22 PM
Am I the only one that thinks if we get Obama and a democrat majority in the house and senate investment money is going to flee this country like the plague and we're going to enjoy a depression?

The problem with our treasury is not how much they take in, it's what they spend. They need to lower spending by so much that they can lower taxes as well. This would be a path to prosperity. Raising taxes will result in higher spending, which will improve nothing, but keep making everything worse.

This will never happen, those trillions the Fed control is their power. They'll never give it up. Shuffle it around, change who pays and who receives maybe. Never give it up.

And this transcends party. Power is power, Donkey or Elephant.

SBK
03-29-2008, 08:23 PM
This will never happen, those trillions the Fed control is their power. They'll never give it up. Shuffle it around, change who pays and who receives maybe. Never give it up.

And this transcends party. Power is power, Donkey or Elephant.

There is no question. Maybe our gov't will have to go bankrupt before any of these jokers either wakes up or is held to account.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2008, 08:57 PM
This will never happen, those trillions the Fed control is their power. They'll never give it up. Shuffle it around, change who pays and who receives maybe. Never give it up.

And this transcends party. Power is power, Donkey or Elephant.

Like my chiro said to me the other day, and which I've said myself, we'll all have to just wait for the day or reckoning when it comes undone...because at some point it will. It's unsustainable.

And it's not just govt spending, it's more monetary expansion by the Fed which will prevent correction.

Logical
03-29-2008, 09:15 PM
... The primary issue facing us in terms of our economic future is whether or not we will be able to produce competitive products for the global market not how much we consume.I think a more fundamental question is are we going to be producing any products at all?

SBK
03-29-2008, 09:24 PM
I think a more fundamental question is are we going to be producing any products at all?

Of course we will, we're a very entrepreneurial people.

Logical
03-29-2008, 11:46 PM
Of course we will, we're a very entrepreneurial people.


I hope you are right.

Logical
03-29-2008, 11:48 PM
By the way HonestChieffan, I really don't think you read the entire article. It does not sound bad at all and not in the least bad for retirees.

RINGLEADER
03-30-2008, 11:07 AM
Lower income taxes = great income.

Kennedy tax cuts proved it.
Reagan tax cuts proved it.
Bush tax cuts proved it.

Adding more drag to a slowing economy isn't the way to get it expanding again.

All that said, if you want to spend the money on different programs that's up to whoever wins. Just don't understand why you'd want to have less money to play with.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 07:52 AM
I said consumer driven...I did not say "consumption."
Do you know what I mean by consumer driven?
I mean businesses must supply goods and services people actually want and need at a price most can afford or they'd be out of business. This includes setting the price. If a widget is too high, enough won't buy...so it's worth nothing. That's the difference between consumer driven and consumption.

I was right then. You didn't understand what I was talking about when you disagreed with me because this has nothing to do with that. Thanks for explaining yourself because I didn't understand what you were talking about either.

I posted to a portion of your earlier post, in fact bolded it, not your entire post because I did not disagree with latter parts of it. I don't agree with Obama on such things.

That being said, I don't see this as a strictly supply-side case either.

I'm sure that Miseans even agree with Keynesians on some things so there's always overlap, but this idea is in the wheel-house of supply-side. Your distorted view that "supply-side" means "maximize government revenues" or "tax cuts always increase revenues" or some such nonsense keeps you from giving supply siders proper credit for what I suspect are some pretty broad areas of agreement with your Miseans.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 08:20 AM
I was right then. You didn't understand what I was talking about when you disagreed with me because this has nothing to do with that. Thanks for explaining yourself because I didn't understand what you were talking about either.
Why is it me and my understanding when your original post didn't say what you wanted more clearly, or because that term "consumer driven" is used another way by a different school. Yeah right! I understood the original post of yours I just disagreed with those specific words you choose for the way you used them. Cabiche?

I'm sure that Miseans even agree with Keynesians on some things so there's always overlap, but this idea is in the wheel-house of supply-side. Your distorted view that "supply-side" means "maximize government revenues" or "tax cuts always increase revenues" or some such nonsense keeps you from giving supply siders proper credit for what I suspect are some pretty broad areas of agreement with your Miseans.
Except, you miss the shades and degrees of nuance on how a Misean isn't exactly on the "supply-side" once again. They don't stimulate either side—demand or supply! Cabiche? Therefore they are both anti-Keynesian and anti-Supply Side especially the way you claim a Misean to be for ss. You have the overlaps not quite right.

The best thing to do is visit the Mises site or go to their institute and really learn about it.

RINGLEADER
03-31-2008, 10:02 AM
This is chilling. This sort of approach is frightening to anyone on a fixed income with their 401K savings on the line or who is living off the proceeeds of a lifetime of saving.

Here is the link to the entire transcript. If you have stocks, savings, a 401K or ever plan to have your savings available in your retirement...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html

And don't get him started on his real views about abortion and gun control -- positions listed on a questionnaire that he now says he never embraced (too bad they found his handwriting on them). Oops!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html

Baby Lee
03-31-2008, 10:06 AM
Nothing is free.

Why do you hate the sick and infirm?

patteeu
03-31-2008, 10:55 AM
Why is it me and my understanding when your original post didn't say what you wanted more clearly, or because that term "consumer driven" is used another way by a different school. Yeah right! I understood the original post of yours I just disagreed with those specific words you choose for the way you used them. Cabiche?

LMAO In the same post where I expressed a suspicion that you didn't understand what I was saying, I said that I probably didn't understand what you were saying. That's perfect symmetry of blame (or more accurately non-blame) there.

And it looks to me like you're topping off your excessive defensiveness with a lie. If you actually understood what I was talking about, you gave no indication whatsoever in any of your responses.

Except, you miss the shades and degrees of nuance on how a Misean isn't exactly on the "supply-side" once again. They don't stimulate either sideódemand or supply! Cabiche? Therefore they are both anti-Keynesian and anti-Supply Side especially the way you claim a Misean to be for ss. You have the overlaps not quite right.

The best thing to do is visit the Mises site or go to their institute and really learn about it.

I'm not trying to draw any one-to-one equivalence or saying that there is any kind of perfect alignment so the issue of whether or not I'm missing shades and degrees of nuance isn't even relevant here.

I recommend that you read Jude Wanniski's book, The Way The World Works, or go through his Supply Side University (http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp) so you can begin to understand supply side ideas.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 11:13 AM
LMAO In the same post where I expressed a suspicion that you didn't understand what I was saying, I said that I probably didn't understand what you were saying. That's perfect symmetry of blame (or more accurately non-blame) there.

And it looks to me like you're topping off your excessive defensiveness with a lie. If you actually understood what I was talking about, you gave no indication whatsoever in any of your responses.



I'm not trying to draw any one-to-one equivalence or saying that there is any kind of perfect alignment so the issue of whether or not I'm missing shades and degrees of nuance isn't even relevant here.

I recommend that you read Jude Wanniski's book, The Way The World Works, or go through his Supply Side University (http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp) so you can begin to understand supply side ideas.

'Er...no. Once again, to re-orientate you, I was posting to the words I bolded.
Oh and Miseans criticize Wanniski. Remember we had that debate before on him too vis-a-vis the Misean pov. Use the search it's there.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 11:16 AM
'Er...no. Once again, to re-orientate you, I was posting to the words I bolded.
Oh and Miseans criticize Wanniski. Remember we had that debate before on him too vis-a-vis the Misean pov. Use the search it's there.

I'm not talking about Miseans. I'm talking about you and trying to help you. Alas, it appears that you're content to continue on without understanding that which you incoherently criticize.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 11:27 AM
I'm just clarifying why I said what I said, and to what, which you're completely misinterpreting.

I only mentioned Miseans in the last post you responded to because you cited Wanniski who they disagree with. So why should I read him?

I was also trying to help you originally.

Cave Johnson
03-31-2008, 12:55 PM
Woohoo! Increasing capital gains tax from 15% to 28% oughtta make sure all those baby boomers don't get too comfortable! Give us that 13% more before you retire! All people who own stock, mutual funds, 401Ks, etc, are rich and evil and should give the government a larger cut.

Boomers have a inalienable right to pre-1997 capital gains rates, regardless of current economic conditions. Regardless of the generational entitlement explosion to come. Hell, let's make it 0%.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 12:58 PM
Boomers have a inalienable right to pre-1997 capital gains rates, regardless of current economic conditions. Regardless of the generational entitlement explosion to come. Hell, let's make it 0%.

Sounds good to me.

How is higher taxes to help an economy?

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:42 PM
Boomers have a inalienable right to pre-1997 capital gains rates, regardless of current economic conditions. Regardless of the generational entitlement explosion to come. Hell, let's make it 0%.

That's what it should be. Let's base our taxes on consumption rather than production.

Cave Johnson
03-31-2008, 02:00 PM
That's what it should be. Let's base our taxes on consumption rather than production.

Other than shifting the tax burden to those least equipped to bear it and grinding our consumer-driven economy into the ground, it's a great idea. And I'm sure it wouldn't lead to rampant black market transactions either.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 02:05 PM
Other than shifting the tax burden to those least equipped to bear it and grinding our consumer-driven economy into the ground, it's a great idea. And I'm sure it wouldn't lead to rampant black market transactions either.

I explained earlier in the thread why I think you and Obama are wrongheaded for seeing the economy as consumer-driven. It's short sighted in a increasingly globalized world.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 03:23 PM
I explained earlier in the thread why I think you and Obama are wrongheaded for seeing the economy as consumer-driven. It's short sighted in a increasingly globalized world.

If there were no taxes, an economy will still be consumer driven. But not consumer stimulated by govt tax policy.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 03:58 PM
If there were no taxes, an economy will still be consumer driven. But not consumer stimulated by govt tax policy.

First, you're talking about a different "consumer driven" than I am (and different than what Pittsie is talking about too). But since I can decipher your alternative language I can respond.

In the future, as a result of globalization, our American economy will no longer be driven primarily by American consumers but instead will be driven by global consumers. American consumers will be a significantly smaller fraction of the global consumer market and will have a correspondingly smaller impact on the American economy. In other words, no matter how you define the term "consumer driven", globalization is having the same impact on our economy and we ought to be removing tax-related, self-inflicted barriers to global competitiveness in anticipation. We're going to have a tax code of some kind so we might as well have one that does as little unnecessary damage to our economy as possible. This would be a move in the same direction (although not nearly as far) as the FAIR Tax.

Logical
03-31-2008, 04:48 PM
Let me just say that BEP and patteeu can produce some really boring and long arguments to read.ROFL