From NBC's Nightly News last night: Candidates tax plans compared

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(about 2.5 minutes in length)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[dalegg 143]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

[symbiosis 0]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

But, economically speaking, it's much more important to get the money into the hands of middle income tax payers. Most service sector jobs service those income brackets (think anything that has to do with food, groceries, auto mechanics, etc. etc.). Luxury goods, which is what the rich would be spending with additional disposable income (and above a very low threshold, it's all disposable), are less extensive and have already taken a beating from the "recession" (I live on the coast and the boating industry is WAY down). The old saw about the rich investing in business is pretty much hogwash. At the level that Obama's tax scheme comes into play for the rich, these people don't invest their own money (as middle class small to medium sized enterprises do). They invest someone else's. And that capital is rapidly drying up, as we've seen from the implosion of the securities and banking industries.

Simply put, if there's a recovery to be had, in a consumer economy such as the U.S., it will come from the middle class. Obama's plan makes more sense.

[symbiosis 0]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

But, economically speaking, it's much more important to get the money into the hands of middle income tax payers. Most service sector jobs service those income brackets (think anything that has to do with food, groceries, auto mechanics, etc. etc.). Luxury goods, which is what the rich would be buying with additional disposable income (and above a very low threshold, it's all disposable), are less extensive and have already taken a beating from the "recession" (I live on the coast and the boating industry is WAY down). The old saw about the rich investing in business is pretty much hogwash. At the level that Obama's tax scheme comes into play for the rich, these people don't invest their own money (as middle class small to medium sized enterprises do). They invest someone else's. And that capital is rapidly drying up, as we've seen from the implosion of the securities and banking industries.

This isn't rocket science, it's Econ 101. Simply put, if there's a recovery to be had, in a consumer economy such as the U.S., it will come from the middle class. Obama's plan makes more sense.

Edited September 24, 2008 by symbiosis

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

Hey Dale... actually think of it a little bit more realistically. Who's taxed more? Now- sure, they pay more. And does that mean that's less money to spend on the economy? I difer from that line of thought. The rich will still be rich. And they'll still have much more money per capita to spend on the economy as they see fit and usually do.

Hence, it is doubtful that a minor decrease in surplus assets/income will hurt the rich into cutting jobs.

[dalegg 143]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

Hey Dale... actually think of it a little bit more realistically. Who's taxed more? Now- sure, they pay more. And does that mean that's less money to spend on the economy? I difer from that line of thought. The rich will still be rich. And they'll still have much more money per capita to spend on the economy as they see fit and usually do.

Hence, it is doubtful that a minor decrease in surplus assets/income will hurt the rich into cutting jobs.

I don't know if its doubtful really. I can see the trickle down affect honestly. It seems logical. But, we're not just talking about filthy rich here. Nowadays $500K is a big salary, but if you start cutting into their money with taxes, they will cut out some luxuries. Maybe worldwide tourism takes a bigger dump. Its not going to be made up for by the extra $1000 you and I get in tax relief.

[Dan J 277]

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

I don't really buy that. Under Bush, the wealthiest tax payers had some of the lowest tax rates. But the job creation rates have been the lowest of any president. Not to mention, incomes of most tax payers have stagnated. Take inflation into account, declined.

There is no incentive to invest the money saved from lower taxes into creating more jobs or paying your employees more. But there is incentive to put the money into investments, since you can make more money with a low capital gains tax. The investments are not necessarily companies, but instead mortgages, commodities and other investments.

[dalegg 143]

But the job creation rates have been the lowest of any president. Not to mention, incomes of most tax payers have stagnated. Take inflation into account, declined.

It can always get worse. Doom I tell you! Doooom!

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

Hey Dale... actually think of it a little bit more realistically. Who's taxed more? Now- sure, they pay more. And does that mean that's less money to spend on the economy? I difer from that line of thought. The rich will still be rich. And they'll still have much more money per capita to spend on the economy as they see fit and usually do.

Hence, it is doubtful that a minor decrease in surplus assets/income will hurt the rich into cutting jobs.

I don't know if its doubtful really. I can see the trickle down affect honestly. It seems logical. But, we're not just talking about filthy rich here. Nowadays $500K is a big salary, but if you start cutting into their money with taxes, they will cut out some luxuries. Maybe worldwide tourism takes a bigger dump. Its not going to be made up for by the extra $1000 you and I get in tax relief.

Usually what trickles down is whenever large profits can get larger... workforces then tend to get the shaft. That is an effect we can measure in recent history.

Besides- remember that its not all making 500K per annum. The rich are rich by far more than just a half $M. So if they still want to lead a luxurious lifestyle, they'd still do so.

[IAMX 3,055]

I don't know what to think about this honestly.

Most people are going to get $1000 or less back, spread out throughout the year. This is about the same as that stimulus check that did almost nothing for the economy and added to the debt. An extra $80 a month might mean more towards our credit cards, easing the price of gas, or it just might catch up slightly with the cost of living.

Meanwhile millions of dollars are taken out of the economy from the upper brackets with Obama. That's not going to be good. I get it it that we need to pay down this debt somehow, but with that money moved from the market place to the government, there are going to be job losses. One approach puts us further in debt, the other approach puts us deeper into recession, which will probably also put us deeper in debt. I think its about time to make some hard choices and start cutting stuff.

Hey Dale... actually think of it a little bit more realistically. Who's taxed more? Now- sure, they pay more. And does that mean that's less money to spend on the economy? I difer from that line of thought. The rich will still be rich. And they'll still have much more money per capita to spend on the economy as they see fit and usually do.

Hence, it is doubtful that a minor decrease in surplus assets/income will hurt the rich into cutting jobs.

I don't know if its doubtful really. I can see the trickle down affect honestly. It seems logical. But, we're not just talking about filthy rich here. Nowadays $500K is a big salary, but if you start cutting into their money with taxes, they will cut out some luxuries. Maybe worldwide tourism takes a bigger dump. Its not going to be made up for by the extra $1000 you and I get in tax relief.

Don't tell me you're still falling for the "trickle-down-effect". The rich are sitting on their money.

That's why the middle class is struggling more. Give it to the middle class because it will trickle down in the same essence (they tend to do more spending of their money), as in the money will actually circulate throughout the economy instead of sit there and accumulate or get into the hands of foreigners.

Edited September 24, 2008 by SRVT