Great piece... from the Rupert Murdoch Street Journal. Oh wait, shall we mention that Mr. Boskin, correction Dr. Boskin (the PhD after his name means he's smart right?) is on the board of directors of ExxonMobil, served on FOoliani's economic advisory team in his run for 2008, member of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution senior advisory board (an industry funded organization that advocates lower taxes and less regulation for big business, taking large donations from conservative organizations) and lets see, what else... oh yea, served on the Council of Economic Advisors for George H.W. Bush.
Gee, wonder why he doesn't like Obama... Please do a little research before posting this crap... then again, I guess you are as you said, a "simple-minded kind of guy". Save it for your nouveau riche email buddies that work harder for their money than anyone else, or better yet, those good, patriotic American folks that think Obama is a terrorist. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of andrew strasfogel Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:28 PM To: Mercedes Discussion List Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax This is a waste of my and everyone else's time. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Rich Thomas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am more concerned about the definition of the word "fair" when applied > to the concept of taxation by those who want to take more in taxes from > people who make more money. Since "fair" changes with a change in > income, I would like to see those who use that word define it, ideally > in a table of income v. tax by % and total amount, kinda like what the > 1040 instruction book has in it. > > It's a real simple question, but no proponent of "fair" share taxation > has been able to tell me what they mean by that word. > > In some ways, I'm a simple-minded kind of guy, so simple answers help me > understand things better. Like, "I make X, how much is 'fair' for me to > pay in taxes?" > > And then, "So, how did you come up with that number?" [Answer probably > takes a bit more explanation] > > So, to Andrew -- if I made $150k per year how much would my "fair" tax > be? $50k, 75k, 100k, 200k, 250k just to round it out a bit. > > --R > > > Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession > > By *MICHAEL J. BOSKIN* > July 29, 2008; Page A17 > [nowides] > > What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent > months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's > contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his > country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal > tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three > decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and > changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by > severing the link between taxes and benefits? > > The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, > possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general > intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama > reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and > economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) > law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, > spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused > by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a > serious setback. > > To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into > the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the > world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's > move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and > 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But > candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and > regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's > toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left. > > Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President > Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict > strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly > elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned > on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll > discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is > similar. > > First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to > marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the > top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in > 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income > taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are > levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable > reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens. > > /(Continued below.)/ > > [Boskin] > > The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state > income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and > Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total > combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small > business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what > they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents > on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax > wage! > > Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also > on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class > couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His > large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would > disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will > not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to > pay for his big increase in spending.) > > On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to > 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of > work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner > or later, would seriously damage the economy. > > On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so > presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful > senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an > alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the > permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means > Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike > in the marginal rate with /no/ deductibility of state income taxes. > Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the > 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work > -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more > than 40%. > > Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, > claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade > Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill > Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization > in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a > metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace > of technological change. > > Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before > passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an > all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as > employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector > grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada > and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations > has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of > 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have > provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects > along the U.S.-Mexico border. > > In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to > argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, > destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged > Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border > environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in > meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with > Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas. > > Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, > including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has > spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate > global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat > terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, > the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of > the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to > put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of > poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his > desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the > world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan > American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade > rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the > liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means > creeping protectionism. > > History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive > to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and > tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix > would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always > progress. > > **Mr. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and senior > fellow at the Hoover Institution, was chairman of the Council of > Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.** > > > ** > > > Obamanomics Clarified > > By *MICHAEL J. BOSKIN* > August 4, 2008; Page A13 > [nowides] > > In my July 29 op-ed ("Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession > <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=Commentary-US > >^1 > "), I was among the many who took Barack Obama's statements that he > would "end the Bush tax cuts for the top incomes" too literally. I > interpreted this to mean a return to the pre-Bush tax rates of 39.6% on > ordinary income and 20% on capital gains. > > The Obama campaign has now clarified that he proposes to do this for > labor earnings, but not for capital gains and dividends. I am told that > Mr. Obama declared last year that he would raise these rates to "no more > than the Reagan rate," by which he apparently means to 28%, from the > current 15%. Mr. Obama would thus raise the tax rate on capital gains by > about three times as much as President Bush cut it, but he'd preserve at > least some of the Bush reduction in the double-taxation of dividends. > > /(Continued below.)/ > > [Boskin] > > The 28% rate on capital gains was the price President Ronald Reagan paid > to pass the 1986 Tax Reform Act that lowered the top marginal tax rate > on ordinary income (including dividends) to 28%. The capital gains rate > was cut to 20% in 1997 under President Bill Clinton, and again to 15% in > 2003. > > However, Mr. Obama is proposing to raise the top marginal rate on wages > (also interest, rent and royalties, etc.) more than 40% above the > corresponding Reagan rate of 28%. Mr. Obama would thus give us the worst > of both worlds: tax rates on ordinary income 40% higher than Reagan and > on capital gains 40% higher than Clinton. > > Raising the rate on capital gains to 28% would greatly reduce the > ability of firms to minimize double taxation by returning cash to their > shareholders through repurchases. As for dividends, the Obama plan would > nearly double the tax to 28% from 15%. > > I have revised the table that accompanied my op-ed showing the negative > effects on the after-tax returns on investments to reflect the > clarification. It is also available at http://www.stanford.edu/~boskin/ > <http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eboskin/>^2 . Please use the new table for > reference purposes. > > I'm glad to hear that Mr. Obama is willing to retain at least a portion > of the Bush tax cuts on dividends. But nearly doubling the tax rates on > capital gains and dividends to 28% is a terrible idea that would damage > fragile financial markets and the economy. > > **Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a > senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; he was chairman of the > President's Council of Economic Advisers in the George H.W. Bush White > House. (The Journal has frequently invited the Obama campaign to explain > its tax plans in our pages, and we gladly repeat the invitation publicly > here today.)** > > Bill R wrote: > > Rich - Watch your language there. "Fair Tax" is pretty exactly defined in > a > > book of the same name. To eliminate ALL other taxes and go with a sales > tax > > to the final consumer only [no tax on business to business sales or used > > items] the estimate is somewhere in the low 20's% [don't recall exactly]. > > No income tax, no inheritance tax, no taxes on anything except sales to > > final consumer. > > BillR > > > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
