I was in my car, and an Obama speech was on the radio. I believe it was live, from a rally. After the usual stuff, I THOUGHT he said that he wanted to help American businesses by eliminating capital gains. Someone please clarify what his current positions are vis-a-vis the capital gains taxes. He was for raising them from 15% to 28%, then on TV he said he would be OK with raising them only to 20%.
IF he means that he wants to eliminate capital gains treatment of investment income and tax those gains like wages, I think it is the worst possible thing he could do.
So somebody set me straight on what Obama wants to do on CG taxes, and why, and why this is a good thing for America.
As I understand it, he wants to raise capital gains taxes overall. He has talked about as high at 28 percent, but I believe the operative number now is 20 percent. Separately, he wants to eliminate CG taxes for small businesses. I don't know exactly what he means by this (nor for that matter may he) but I'm guessing he means that if you start a small business and sell out at some later date, the capital gains resulting from selling out will not be taxed. How do you determine what is a small business and what isn't? If you start a small business and it grows into a not-small business before you sell, what happens? There are at least a few hundred questions like that which AFAIK remain unanswered.
Who does it benefit? Why, small business owners, of course. Who does it REALLY benefit? Warren Buffett. You see, he makes a living by buying out small businesses and rolling them into Berkshire Hathaway. The lower the tax on the transaction, the cheaper he can buy.
What benefits Buffett even more than this? Restoring the estate tax. Why? When do most small businesses have to sell? When the owner dies and they don't have enough cash to pay the estate taxes. Buffett swoops in, offers much less than 100 cents on the dollar, but he has them over a barrel because they have to sell. Buffett is, of course, a prominent Obama economic adviser.
This is not repeat not repeat not meant as an attack on Warren Buffett. He's doing nothing but (1) taking advantage of the laws as written and (2) using his influence to get the laws changed to be even more advantageous to him. That's fair game, as far as I'm concerned. But I do find it a bit disconcerting when Obama says that we can be certain that with advisers like Buffett his economic policy will benefit all of us, when full disclosre might be that there are couple of key parts that will clearly benefit Buffett more than the rest of us.
Here's his plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Fac..._FINAL.pdf
Basically, for families making $250k or more (the same $250k number for which marginal rates would go up to 39% from 36% on income) -- I assume this means individuals making more than $125k if filing individually -- LTCG taxes would go up to 20% from the current 15%.
As 69/70/75 says, he seeks to eliminate cap gains tax on small businesses and startups... I think -- though it's not clear -- he means that CG from making investment in such business would not be taxed.
Here are some selections:
Quote:Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes for Entrepreneurs and Investors in Small Business. Barack Obama
understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains
taxes on investments in small and start up firms.
...
Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in
2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.
Also worth noting, dividends would be treated as LTCG for tax purposes (up to 15% for the <$125/$250k group, 20% for the >$125/$250k group). I assume he means nonqualified dividends, since I think qualified dividends are already at the LTCG rate.
I agree with Owl69/70/75 (we've got to come up with something easier to type than that) in that the small business proposal makes no sense. There is no detail to back it up to make it understandable. It seems like a platitude thrown out to sound good. What does it really mean? Microsoft was a small business, and in very short order, it was a big business. So was Google. (Just for two easy examples.) So would Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer not owe capital gains taxes when they sell out, if this were in effect when they launched Microsoft? What about the venture capitalists that invested in Google or Yahoo initially?
I'm not sure anyone knows at this point.
And not to pick on Obama too much, but this line from the factsheet texd linked to stunned me. It logically doesn't make sense compared to some of his other plans:
Quote:Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
First, I'm not sure where they get the 18.2 percent of GDP - is this for income tax only? Because the
OECD figures I found for the US says the 2005 tax burden in the US was 27.3% and even in the Reagan years (2005) it was 25.6%. (Maybe that means that current income tax is about 20% of GDP, if I take the difference between the OECD figures for Reagan and Bush II? That would still be about 1.5 percent reduction, or what - $200 billion less revenue?)
Here's what I don't get. Obama isn't proposing a spending freeze across the agencies, but talks about a scalpel to trim costs. This quote says that overall tax revenues for the US are going to decrease in his plan, yet while he has lots of proposed new spending and investment (based on what I've seen, I've got to believe his scalpel isn't going to be a net reduction in expenditures for the government with the new spending proposed), he's also going to bring down the deficit? I'd love to see that math.
gsloth Wrote:I'd love to see that math.
I'd like for someone who is supporting him to explain it.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:gsloth Wrote:I'd love to see that math.
I'd like for someone who is supporting him to explain it.
No explaining the math.
He's a liar, telling whatever lie he needs to tell at the moment.
He's gotten away with the lies because he's been given a free ride by the mainstream media, who should have been investigating the obvious lies from the beginning.
Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:gsloth Wrote:I'd love to see that math.
I'd like for someone who is supporting him to explain it.
No explaining the math.
He's a liar, telling whatever lie he needs to tell at the moment.
He's gotten away with the lies because he's been given a free ride by the mainstream media, who should have been investigating the obvious lies from the beginning.
I'd still like to hear an Obama supporter try to explain it, if only for the comic relief.
Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:No explaining the math.
He's a liar, telling whatever lie he needs to tell at the moment.
He's gotten away with the lies because he's been given a free ride by the mainstream media, who should have been investigating the obvious lies from the beginning.
Well, I'm not an Obama supporter, but let's be fair. ALL presidential candidates (and most lower-level candidates) do this. They all say they're going to cut taxes, and they all have a bunch of great ideas for things that cost money, and they all fail to reconcile the cost with the income.
Besides, if you're campaigning for office in this country, the last thing you want to do is explain any math. The American People simply don't want to hear it. They want somebody who speaks Plain English, not some Intellectual Elite. We need a leader who is just as confused by math as the rest of us. (/rant)
What ends up happening is one of two things: the great ideas either don't happen (Clinton), or we massively increase the deficit (Reagan-W). I'm not convinced that the latter will continue to be an option, but that's a different subject.
The same can be said for McCain or ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WE'VE HAD SINCE 1964. The only semi-exception is that Clinton's numbers ended up adding up once his health plan hit a wall.
I could say I'd like to hear how McCain's numbers add up, but I don't want to hear that because I know they don't. BTW an across the board spending freeze is a bull**** campaign platitude that is never implemented because it is not feasible.
For those of you who want to see the math, why not email the Obama campaign and ask them. I'm sure they've got white papers galore that they'd be happy to share.
As far as Obama being a liar, I've yet to see 69/70/75 cite one example that was not just an overblown campaign promise.
Lastly, having been indirectly told that I must be hoping that Obama is lying to me, with the implication that otherwise I must be an idiot, I'm getting out of the business of doing research for people who cannot be respectful. I'm sure that y'all have enough experience to do your own research. If you want a place to start, try the Tax Policy Center.
Good posts, Gravy and TexD. If Obama were even to try to explain his math, the McCain campaign would use it against him by portraying him as a bookworm that "doesn't see America like the rest of us." No one is explaining his math in this election because each candidate knows that that's not what voters want to hear. For McCain's part, he knows that his base wants to hear about stuff they can get their heads around, e.g., American values, war, terror, My country 'tis of thee, Ayres, socialism, patriotism, maverickiness, etc. Obama wants to talk about W. and how there needs to be change.
Barrett - My only response to that is, fine, don't show us the math. But don't make a blanket statement like that that does not hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
And honestly, I find the McCain website even more of a joke. You cannot find any significant details over there (the last time I looked, which was about a month ago - I just looked now and it's better than it was, but still lacking in real depth). Obama at least gives a few more details. But statement like that would (should?) get laughed at and mocked by a Jon Stewart. It's ludicrous to make that kind of claim, because many will take it at face value.
Texd - actually, an across the board freeze is exactly what state and local governments do all the time in this type of situation. The commonwealth of Virginia is doing almost exactly that right now. They're then required to prioritize what they want to pay for (including headcount) within their organization. Honestly, it's the least I would expect any president to do in a situation with spending so mismatched to actual revenues. (And maybe I should start another thread on how the Social Security taxes are actually counted as revenue for budget deficit purposes, and that there really wasn't a true GAAP budget surplus even in the Clinton years. And the current Bush deficits are even uglier than what is reported, easily pushing toward $1 trillion if social security funds were actually managed like a true trust fund.)
And Gravy - I'm with you on deficit spending. The US could be very close to hitting the limit for what foreign creditors might be willing to stomach. But then again, I've thought that before and am still waiting to be right. (Just like the perma-bears on Wall Street.)
texd Wrote:As far as Obama being a liar, I've yet to see 69/70/75 cite one example that was not just an overblown campaign promise.
"just an overblown campaign promise" = lie
That's far enough right there, but I will ask one further question.
Do you really believe that he sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and had no idea what was going on?
Don't tell me that you do believe it unless you are also willing to state that you could attend a church regularly, have a close personal relationship with the pastor, and have no understanding where that pastor is coming from. I personally don't see how I could attend a church for 20 weeks, or even 20 days, without having a pretty good idea where the key players were coming from politically.
I do not believe it could possibly be true that the sound bytes that caused the problems were isolated incidents. That's simply not believable. The church is clearly in the middle of the liberation theology movement, and those sound bytes clearly come out of the mainstream of that movement. I've attended services at liberation theology churches, I've studied the movement on an intellectual level (because it troubles me, not because of any attraction), and I believe I understand the basic concepts pretty well. The sound bytes came, not from someone sneaking in with a video camera, but from the church's own materials that it was selling in the lobby.
I believe that Obama got caught in a situation where the truth would hurt his political career, so he lied. The people who are supposed to ferret out lies like that--the mainstream media--want to see him win so badly that they gave him a free pass. In time, the lie will become the truth. See Hitler/Goebbels, circa 1933.
Do I have smoking gun proof that it is a lie? No. But I don't have time or access to obtain that proof. The people who do have those resources clearly aren't interested in checking things out. What I have is circumstantial evidence. But in this case that evidence is sufficient to remove any doubt, at least in my mind, about whether he's lying or not.
There's just this hint of sleaze involving way too many issues. Kind of like there was with Nixon and Watergate. Did I have proof that he lied? Not initially. Did I have sufficient circumstantial evidence to believe that a Nixon lie had to be at the bottom of it? Yes. Did that belief prove to be correct? Of course.
gsloth Wrote:Barrett - My only response to that is, fine, don't show us the math. But don't make a blanket statement like that that does not hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
And honestly, I find the McCain website even more of a joke. You cannot find any significant details over there (the last time I looked, which was about a month ago - I just looked now and it's better than it was, but still lacking in real depth). Obama at least gives a few more details. But statement like that would (should?) get laughed at and mocked by a Jon Stewart. It's ludicrous to make that kind of claim, because many will take it at face value.
Texd - actually, an across the board freeze is exactly what state and local governments do all the time in this type of situation. The commonwealth of Virginia is doing almost exactly that right now. They're then required to prioritize what they want to pay for (including headcount) within their organization. Honestly, it's the least I would expect any president to do in a situation with spending so mismatched to actual revenues. (And maybe I should start another thread on how the Social Security taxes are actually counted as revenue for budget deficit purposes, and that there really wasn't a true GAAP budget surplus even in the Clinton years. And the current Bush deficits are even uglier than what is reported, easily pushing toward $1 trillion if social security funds were actually managed like a true trust fund.)
And Gravy - I'm with you on deficit spending. The US could be very close to hitting the limit for what foreign creditors might be willing to stomach. But then again, I've thought that before and am still waiting to be right. (Just like the perma-bears on Wall Street.)
Agree 100%. I particularly agree that McCain really hasn't done any better. IMO it's pathetic that we are at this critical point and this is the best leadership we can find. Of course, maybe the second part of that sentence explains how we got to the first part.
Obama is telling people things that couldn't possibly be true, and people are swallowing them hook, line, and sinker.
To those who say, "Oh, don't worry, he won't deliver on all of his campaign promises," I have one question--Which ones will he deliver on, and which ones won't he?
texd Wrote:As far as Obama being a liar, I've yet to see 69/70/75 cite one example that was not just an overblown campaign promise.
Hmmn, wish you had been around to explain this in '92, when the Clinton campaign was based on "Bush Lied!", when all that really happened was he broke one of those overblown campaign promises.
BTW, I will cite you one. It is just too grandiose to not be a lie. It is Obama's statement that he sat in his church for 20 years, had personal and private meetings with his pastor, and never once heard him express the sentiments that were displayed on the commercially available videotapes. Do you believe that? Not once. never heard that stuff from Rev. Wright. I don't. He would have to had slept more in church than Rip van Winkle, and from what I saw on the tapes, that is a hard place to sleep.
FWIW, here is my personal definition of a lie. It is a lie when you know it to be untrue when you say it. If I call my wife and tell her I am working late tonight with the intention of visiting my girlfriend, that is a lie. If I am planning to work late when I say it, but the building catches on fire and i end up at the hospital, not a lie.
Some examples:
"No new taxes" - broken campaign promise, but I think he meant it when he said it, so not a lie.
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" - lie
So the question becomes, does Obama know at this point that he cannot and will not keep all of his campaign promises, yet he keeps making them? If so, lies.
The alan colmes defense of "what about ..." where bad actions of one's favorites are supposedly diminished by pointing out similar bad actions of other people does not in any way excuse or ratify the bad actions of anybody. At least that what I told my kids when they were growing up.
Sorry to lose your research and your opinions, but I understand where you are coming from. Some of the things said or intimated about me have been equally as hurtful, and equally as inaccurate.
As for white papers, I am sure each side can produce enough white papers to paper the conference room.
Barrett Wrote:If Obama were even to try to explain his math, the McCain campaign would use it against him by portraying him as a bookworm that "doesn't see America like the rest of us."
Any factual basis for this?
OptimisticOwl Wrote:FWIW, here is my personal definition of a lie. It is a lie when you know it to be untrue when you say it. If I call my wife and tell her I am working late tonight with the intention of visiting my girlfriend, that is a lie. If I am planning to work late when I say it, but the building catches on fire and i end up at the hospital, not a lie.
Some examples:
"No new taxes" - broken campaign promise, but I think he meant it when he said it, so not a lie.
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" - lie
I would agree with this definition, and would extend it to W in the following ways.
"I will reduce the size of the federal government"--lie
"I will get us out of the nation-building business"--lie
Maybe those weren't lies by your defnition. Maybe W actually intended those things, but he was manipulated by Cheney and Rummy. Even if W intended them, surely he knew that Cheney and Rummy were going to move things in a different direction from that. So I think he knew he was lying when he said them.
I won't accept the explanation that 9/11 intervened to change things, not on either point. There were numerous possible responses to 9/11 that would have dealt with the problem, perhaps more effectively, without going back on those promises. And 9/11 clearly had nothing to do with No Child Left Behind or the prescription drug bill or any of a number of other things.
As for Iraq, going in because of the belief that Saddam had nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons was not a lie. The intelligence to support those beliefs was credible, even if later proved wrong, just as there is often credible evidence to support the belief that a suspect is guilty, even if at trial that guilt cannot be proved. What was a lie in that context was arrogantly maintaining that there was no possibilty that the intellgence was wrong. Would the American people have supported a war based on the truthful claim that, "We can't be 100% sure, but we have reason to believe that Saddam does possess nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons"? Obviously the neocons were unwilling to find out.
NOW, we are getting to MY biggest problem with this election... and really, most elections.
Lets for a moment leave out the honest people with intellectual differences on things. They will generally gravitate towards one party or another... and some will shift on specific issues. THOSE people have generally decided pretty early on. They aren't swayed by platitudes, promises or white papers. They go with their experience... and honest people can reach vastly different conclusions.
So we're left with a campaign for the undecided... and what do we get??
From ONE side, we get an appeal to energize the base... same thing from the other... so we get an appeal to the middle... the upper middle from the right, and the lower middle from the left... anyone surprised yet??
FINALLY, we get plans and platitudes... sound-bytes and gotcha's.
Here's what i believe...
Obama has made his career by representing the poor... When it comes down to making decisions on priorities, and I believe that Pelosi, Franks et al, plus the realities of the world will make it so... he will side with the poor. When I think about what Franks and Pelosi will give him to sign, I see more social engineering under the guise of oversight. That's not the purpose of oversight... and it has contributed greatly to our mess. If the government wants to press social issues, let them do so with taxpayer money... NOT investor money and the jobs of employees... Be honest about your goals... if you want business to fund social programs, then tax them and pay for it... don't give them social guidelines and then act surprised when they try and accomplish your goals cheaply. This underhanded taxation worries me MUCH more than Obama's promises. While I may not be the target of Obama's taxes, I believe I am closer to being the target of his taxes than the beneficiary of his voting record... and MUCH closer to Pelosi and Frank's tax targets.
With McCain, I see the same sort of efforts to get elected... but despite even the claims of some on this board that I truly respect... I don't see why McCain would suddenly be really any different from who he has always been. Sure, that may not be what you want... and he is saying what needs to be said to get elected... but what good is a guy of great principle and great ideas if he can't or doesn't get elected?
as to McCain not having a grasp on the economy... he certainly anticipated the problems at FHLMC and FNMA... while Franklin Raines, Obama, Pelosi, Franks and others said there was no problem... Franks as recently as July said that while it HAD been a problem (despite saying it wasn't in 2003 and 2005) that it was under control now... guess not. In my mind... you can hire people to fix things... the KEY is to realize there's a problem... and though Obama says there is one now... he didn't see it when we could have perhaps avoided it.
Heck, even Bush saw it and made significant mention of it in 2003... but he just didn't follow through on it.
In the past, the benefits that somehow were supposed to benefit the poor usually did not benefit the poor. Most of the money gets spent on middlemen such as bureaucrats, social workers and community organizers. The dependancy culture that was created often harmed the social structure that had helped the poor. AFDC (welfare) ended up encouraging men to leave the family so the family could get the AFDC check.
There is more than enough blame to go around about the economic crisis. Neither Obama nor McCain were major players in dealing with the economic issues. Obama did not have any real influence as a first term Senator. McCain has always been more interested in the defense and foriegn policy issues. The real problem is that the one who could foresee the probelem such as Bush or McCain never had the votes to change the status quo.
Hambone10 Wrote:NOW, we are getting to MY biggest problem with this election... and really, most elections.
Lets for a moment leave out the honest people with intellectual differences on things. They will generally gravitate towards one party or another... and some will shift on specific issues. THOSE people have generally decided pretty early on. They aren't swayed by platitudes, promises or white papers. They go with their experience... and honest people can reach vastly different conclusions.
So we're left with a campaign for the undecided... and what do we get??
From ONE side, we get an appeal to energize the base... same thing from the other... so we get an appeal to the middle... the upper middle from the right, and the lower middle from the left... anyone surprised yet??
FINALLY, we get plans and platitudes... sound-bytes and gotcha's.
Here's what i believe...
Obama has made his career by representing the poor... When it comes down to making decisions on priorities, and I believe that Pelosi, Franks et al, plus the realities of the world will make it so... he will side with the poor. When I think about what Franks and Pelosi will give him to sign, I see more social engineering under the guise of oversight. That's not the purpose of oversight... and it has contributed greatly to our mess. If the government wants to press social issues, let them do so with taxpayer money... NOT investor money and the jobs of employees... Be honest about your goals... if you want business to fund social programs, then tax them and pay for it... don't give them social guidelines and then act surprised when they try and accomplish your goals cheaply. This underhanded taxation worries me MUCH more than Obama's promises. While I may not be the target of Obama's taxes, I believe I am closer to being the target of his taxes than the beneficiary of his voting record... and MUCH closer to Pelosi and Frank's tax targets.
With McCain, I see the same sort of efforts to get elected... but despite even the claims of some on this board that I truly respect... I don't see why McCain would suddenly be really any different from who he has always been. Sure, that may not be what you want... and he is saying what needs to be said to get elected... but what good is a guy of great principle and great ideas if he can't or doesn't get elected?
as to McCain not having a grasp on the economy... he certainly anticipated the problems at FHLMC and FNMA... while Franklin Raines, Obama, Pelosi, Franks and others said there was no problem... Franks as recently as July said that while it HAD been a problem (despite saying it wasn't in 2003 and 2005) that it was under control now... guess not. In my mind... you can hire people to fix things... the KEY is to realize there's a problem... and though Obama says there is one now... he didn't see it when we could have perhaps avoided it.
Heck, even Bush saw it and made significant mention of it in 2003... but he just didn't follow through on it.
From Obama's statement that he wants to use tax policy to "spread the wealth around" the only thing sure is that ANY Obama amendments to the US Tax Code will just keep accountants and estate planners/probate attorneys gainfully employed.
I still can't see how he can give the "middle class" a tax "cut", increase taxes on those making over $250K, and have all the billions in additional spending he proposes--and keep the federal budget anywhere near balanced.