Posted on 08/24/2008 1:35:27 PM PDT by shrinkermd
...Obama would have the top 1% of income-tax payers handing over an average of $93,700 more - to $652,900. McCain would reduce the group's taxes by $48,860 to $510,320. While appealing, it fails to address the impact such a blow to the super-rich's disposable income could have:
These folks tend to plow a lot of their money into businesses -- from family operations to blue-chip stocks -- to say nothing of shopping trips and travel. In other words, cutting their after-tax income could deal another blow to an already-hobbled economy.
Investment strategist Michael Aronstein notes a similar plan, implemented by Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, sucked "much-needed investment capital out of the markets and into the hands of bureaucrats, delaying the turnaround." Looking ahead ten years, the difference between the two is far from insignificant. Obama would siphon about $800B out of corporate coffers, while McCain's plan would reduce the government's take by $600B.
...Analysis by independent economist Allen Sinai measured the impact of the Bush administration's tax cuts: Without them, GDP would have been 0.7% less each year from 2001-2006, and unemployment would have been 1.2% higher.
Wachovia chief economist John Silvia notes corporate and capital-gains tax hikes would impede foreign investment once the world gets wind that it's more expensive to do business in the U.S.
All this is not to say that an Obama win spells sure disaster:
Obama could get lucky... Oil prices could fall to $50 a barrel, or a Tom Edison might turn crab grass into jet fuel. Better yet, Obama, who's no dummy, might think twice about raising taxes during the worst financial crisis in 78 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...
Most Dems and independents don’t read Barron’s. Preaching to the choir.
OF COURSE his proposals are bad for the economy. But like Russia, Obama compares about POWER and ability to destroy his perceived enemies.
It should have been “But like the USSR, Obama only cares about POWER and the ability to destroy his perceived enemies.”
Obama doesn’t care about our existing economy. He’s a Marxist.
Obama would be ‘the master of disaster”!
All you have to do is take a good look at CALiflowwer-n-ia.
THey raised the taxes on the ‘rich’ and the rich left the state. The budget is short some 9.5 billion because of the stupid taxes....
George Will
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has made his economic thinking excruciatingly clear, so it also is clear that his running mate should have been not Joe Biden, but Rumpelstiltskin. He spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need in order to fulfill its fairy-tale promises.
Obama recently said he would “require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term — more than double what we have now.” Note the verb “require” and the adjective “renewable.”
By 2012 he would “require” the economy’s huge energy sector to — here things become comic — supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source. About 20 percent of America’s energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.
Obama is (this is part of liberalism’s catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says — and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state — he distrusts the safety of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today’s situation — nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.
But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.
Obama has also promised that “we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years.” What a tranquilizing verb “get” is. This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both — billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.
Conservatives are sometimes justly accused of ascribing magic powers to money and markets: Increase the monetary demand for anything and the supply of it will expand. But it is liberals like Obama who think that any new technological marvel or other social delight can be summoned into existence by a sufficient appropriation. Once they thought “model cities” could be, too.
Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power (see above). And not anywhere else, if Obama means this: “I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming — an 80 percent reduction by 2050.”
No he won’t. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans — 40 million more households. So Obama’s cap would require reducing per capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those “in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.”
Regarding taxes, Obama says “we don’t want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent.” The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today’s 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama’s policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today’s politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, “saving the planet,” and promising edicts to “require” entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign’s scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: “Where’s the outrage?” This year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?
Reducing the tax rate, while simultaneously INCREASING the gross revenue the government takes in as a consequence, is just beyond the comprehension of many individuals. It seems so counter-intuitive, but the principle works everytime it is applied.
Even with all this practical experience, however, the connection just never seems to be made in the minds of some. Unfortunately they get elected and re-elected to positions of influence within the government police power agencies.
“Obama Is Bad for the Economy”
2 + 2 = 4
The I want it for free crowd loves Obama.
If you think the stock market looks bad today wait and if he is elected you will get to see a stock market headed for Mexico.
Oh! Did I mention the rich people here in the USA are not tied to any solid object! They can go be with the other Americans that found new lives overseas.
I have given thought to doing it myself!
Great Britian is losing about 600,000 people this year!
Imagine paying about 60 Percent of your day for taxes.
It is his own entire life story. Why not a whole army?
Obama is bad for America and Americans. Obama is even bad for many Democrats.
If you want some entertainment (and frustration) read some of the comments appended to this Seeking Alpha version of this article. Many delusional libs thinking that Obama’s tax increases and spending plans will be GREAT! Return us to those wondrous years of the Clinton Administration when we ran huge surpluses!!! Bush and his ilk have given us all this pain! Let’s see, they seem to neglect:
The bursting of the internet bubble.
The recession that greeted Bush when he entered office in 2001.
A little incident that happened in September 2001...
Oh, just a few inconvenient factoids.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.