Scared of Obama and Clinton Tax Brackets!

[quincym]

I'd expect about a zillion things to have to do with any increase in gov't revenue and that the ceteris paribus effect of a tax cut would be difficult to ascertain. Any citations? Don't mean to be a prick, but without actual data/studies, threads like this are just full of partisans throwing bullshit at each other.

[saradsun]

I haven't read this whole thread but.

"Oh my god! The sky is falling! Change! I'm too afraid!"

[namehasbeenchanged]

read the thread...it is actually a good one...I am enjoying this....keep it up guys!

[PABitz]

When dealing with the redistribution of wealth/welfare issue discussed previously, I abide by the ancient Chinese proverb--"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.  Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

Of course, there's always the other, IMO more accurate version of this saying: "Teach a man to fish, and he'll get drunk and sit in a boat all day."

Something someone else alluded to above, but that I think people are willfully ignoring: a 39.5% top tax bracket does not mean that the people in the top tax bracket are forking over 39.5% of their income.  It means that they're taxed 39.5% of the portion of their income that falls in the top tax bracket.  And because of deductions and clever accountants, most people in the top tax bracket pay a smaller percentage than people in the lowest bracket (lowest bracket that's required to pay anything, not those who are tax-exempt, obviously).

Y'all are some greedy sons of bitches, if you ask me. 

I was one of the people who mentioned the casual misuse of marginal as average (effective) tax rates earlier and I'd just like to point out that the bold statement is absolutely wrong. Effective tax rates increase monotonically with income quintile. They are just all a lot lower than the marginal rates.

[UNAS]

When dealing with the redistribution of wealth/welfare issue discussed previously, I abide by the ancient Chinese proverb--"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.  Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime."

Of course, there's always the other, IMO more accurate version of this saying: "Teach a man to fish, and he'll get drunk and sit in a boat all day."

Something someone else alluded to above, but that I think people are willfully ignoring: a 39.5% top tax bracket does not mean that the people in the top tax bracket are forking over 39.5% of their income.  It means that they're taxed 39.5% of the portion of their income that falls in the top tax bracket.  And because of deductions and clever accountants, most people in the top tax bracket pay a smaller percentage than people in the lowest bracket (lowest bracket that's required to pay anything, not those who are tax-exempt, obviously).

Y'all are some greedy sons of bitches, if you ask me. 

I was one of the people who mentioned the casual misuse of marginal as average (effective) tax rates earlier and I'd just like to point out that the bold statement is absolutely wrong. Effective tax rates increase monotonically with income quintile. They are just all a lot lower than the marginal rates.

Could it not be argued that those of us on the board fretting over a repeal in taxes that won't have any material effect on us until 3 years out of law school or a sudden insane salary hike are just not smart enough to take advantage of the many loopholes existent in the system. Using the widely accepted logic from my friends on the right, maybe you all deserve to be taxed higher since you weren't shrewd enough to avoid the taxes to begin with

[1654134681665465]

Is it fair that a child of a single, unemployed mother be denied food, health care, and a warm house?

No, but if girls grew up knowing that if they got pregnant that the gov't wouldn't send them a check and bail them out, I bet they would be a lot more careful about who they choose to sleep with and when to become sexually active.  As it stands now, there are many communities where it is so common for teenage girls to get knockedup (and they aren't worried about the consequences because that means they get a check and a CHEAP apartment). We need to STOP giving incentives for people to behave recklessly with their lives.  

For some people, why worry about saving for retirement? I'll be gettin' my welfare check anyways.  Spends what I gots now, and don't worry about what that means later-because (after all) the gov't HAS to bail me out.  There is no way that they are going to sit there and let me starve to death (even though I might deserve it because I didn't care enough to plan ahead-and the planning that I did do, involved gov't assistance).  

[upwithmontana]

This is exactly why we have the alternative minimum tax: to keep rich people from doing this stuff.

I'm not so much worried about a tax rate hike on what I will lose from it (I wouldn't mind seeing Bush's tax cuts go away, we couldn't afford them at the time and we still can't), but I feel like there's no real emphasis on controlling spending from any of the 3 candidates left. McCain wants to control earmarks, and said he wouldn't sign anything with earmarks, but I just don't see him possibly being able to get by on that. He's going to need to open a mint in Iraq to fund the war at the level he's planning on. Obama's programs (and since his policy is close to Clinton's, include hers in this sentence) all seem like really good ideas, but there doesn't seem to be any real check on his spending. The Dems are going to blowout the senate races this year if Obama wins the primary, so he's going to have a blank check. I hope he's careful in how much he spends, because our economy can't really handle a huge tax increase right now (THANKS BUSH FOR KILLING OUR ECONOMY).

You've pretty much just summed up my opinion.  I cannot stand it when candidates will not talk about how they plan to pay for their proposed candy and ice cream world while at the same time telling the middle class that they will actually save money.  I'm not saying it's impossible, just LET ME HEAR ABOUT SOME NUMBERS!!!  

[1654134681665465]

Another thing, that I don't think that people are considering is that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will some day be over.  The plans that Osama and HillBilly are planning will be PERMANENT!!!!!!  Once people get used to gov't healthcare, it will be all but impossible to take it away from them again.  They will have become totally dependant upon it, that they won't let it happen.  If the war (which is temporary and costing as much as it does now) has had such a negative effect on the economy, then what will these new, EXTREMELY expensive and PERMANENT programs do to it??

For the record, Barack is an idiot and would make a horrible president, because he has hardly any leadership experience (which is not exactly ideal for someone running to become the President of the United States).  

[upwithmontana]

Is it fair that a child of a single, unemployed mother be denied food, health care, and a warm house?

No, but if girls grew up knowing that if they got pregnant that the gov't wouldn't send them a check and bail them out, I bet they would be a lot more careful about who they choose to sleep with and when to become sexually active.  As it stands now, there are many communities where it is so common for teenage girls to get knockedup (and they aren't worried about the consequences because that means they get a check and a CHEAP apartment). We need to STOP giving incentives for people to behave recklessly with their lives.  

For some people, why worry about saving for retirement? I'll be gettin' my welfare check anyways.  Spends what I gots now, and don't worry about what that means later-because (after all) the gov't HAS to bail me out.  There is no way that they are going to sit there and let me starve to death (even though I might deserve it because I didn't care enough to plan ahead-and the planning that I did do, involved gov't assistance).  

Oh!  I was largely with you up to this point.  I can't say I agree that people ever deserve to starve to death.  

An anecdote: When I was in high school, I knew no less than THREE girls who got pregnant once by accident, and once again on purpose in order to get a larger check (while still in high school, and on welfare).  Even though all of these couples are still together, they refuse to get married because a single mom with two kids commands a higher income than a married couple in the same situation.  It's legal, but I don't know if it's ethical to bring a new life into the world partly for financial gain.

[Eggshell Shin Vosburg]

nm, my reply deleted itself. Briefly, I'll just say that calling Barack stupid is hysterical. I'm sure UChi hires idiots to be professors, and Harvard has that as a qualification to be president of HLR. Calling him stupid is just.....stupid. I don't necessarily agree with everything the man says, but it's pretty clear he's very bright (and so are McCain and Hillary).