Articles about Obama VS. Joe the Plumber

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/tax_rates_vs_tax_revenues.html
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977479702

Like all of the good things in life, a law of diminishing returns applies. Too much of a good thing is eventually bad. The first article you cited stated "an increase in federal tax rates does not necessarily mean an increase in federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, history reveals just the opposite is true." Sorry to break it to you, but this is a fucking lie.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to increase jobs, increase the wages of the middle class, and increase revenues of the government. FAIL FAIL FAIL. We have had a net loss of jobs in the US, purchasing power of the middle class has only risen negligibly and government revenues fell. How McCain is running on a platform that primarily benefits the rich astounds me.

The richest 1% pays 30% of the taxes? Oh boo-fucking-who! The top 1% controls 38% of the wealth. Where else are we supposed to get the money.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/6
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-09.htm

Studies that focus on the effect of tax cuts on the economy point toward job creation, higher wages, and an increase in revenue. The fact that the economy is experiencing a downturn cannot be linked to the Bush Tax Cuts. The slide is due to other problems. I'm pulling from multiple sources so I'll help you out by quoting those studies HERE, so you don't have to read all day (just half a day).

What does the following article tell you (cited by Lori Robertson, author of the Fact Check article you linked to)?

"History demonstrates that lower tax rates are good for the economy. The tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s all resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. Moreover, even though critics complained that these tax rate reductions would allow the "rich" to keep too much of their money, upper-income taxpayers actually wound up paying a greater share of the tax burden during all three decades, because lower rates reduced the incentive to hide, shelter, and underreport income."
Heritage.org

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
The Huffington Post

"The higher the bracket, the greater the penalty. By the time taxpayers reach the 39.6 percent bracket, they are able to keep only about 60 cents of any added income--and this is counting only the federal individual income tax. This high tax "price" of government has adverse effects on work effort, but most of the economic damage occurs because punitive tax rates discourage saving and investment. Indeed, because upper-bracket taxpayers earn most of their income by supplying capital to the market, and because capital is extremely sensitive to changes in tax rates, this is one of the most important reasons to reduce the top tax rate.

More specifically, high tax rates encourage upper-income taxpayers to alter the location, timing, and composition of their portfolios to protect their income. This misallocation of savings and investment reduces the economy's growth rate and deprives workers of the capital they need to be more productive; and this lower productivity means, of course, that workers will earn less income."

-Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Heritage.org

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden."
House Joint Economic Committee ReportApril 1996

"Referring to the chart on page 5 of the census report, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%. Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.

Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.

This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer."
Letxa.com

"Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian."
Letxa.com

Moving this video to deedub81's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Very nice, Deedub. But no votes, of course.

Nobody wants to pay attention to the other side of the argument once in a while?

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter deedub81.

What conversation is here, is better than the clip from Fox and Friends that raises these kinds of silly aspersions.

First we need to point out that McCain's $5000 refundable tax credit for "healthcare" would work in much the same way. It's $5k into the pockets of people who aren't paying any taxes at all. McCain is clearly the socialist here.

I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy.

There are two schools of thought about what makes an economy grow. Conservatives say that lessening government spending, and making sure that the rich bear less tax burden is the best/only way to create jobs.

The other school of thought is that more money in the hands of the lower & middle class creates more demand, and more lucrative possibilities for the rich to invest in -- only now they have to cater to the desires of the people of the lower/middle classes, instead of whatever the investor class feels like doing (like Credit Default Swaps, say).

Additionally, there's a dual benefit to government spending -- short term, it creates jobs, and pumps money into the economy, just like any other kind of spending. The other is that government can invest in things that have very long-term returns, like improved education, environmental protection, and improved infrastructure. In the short run, they can create deficits, but in the long run they make us all more wealthy as private industry takes advantage of the fruits of that public infrastructure (like with the Interstate Highways program).

Finally, we have an enormous national debt, largely created by Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Dubyah Bush. Now isn't a good time to try to pay it down, but tax increases are guaranteed during our lifetimes, and it's better they happen sooner rather than later. When it comes to asking who should pay those increased taxes, do you really think the poorest people should be asked to give the same portion as the people who've taken the lion's share of the growth over the last decade?

I get the argument that conservatives make, I just think, like theaceofclubz said, there's diminishing returns.

Think of the extreme case, the elimination of all income tax. Will that increase tax revenue? Certainly 100% tax would be similarly fruitless. I think Bush cut taxes to a level below the optimal level. Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K.

I also think companies are too shortsighted with how they invest their money, so government programs can do things that corporations won't, because the ROI would take decades, or worse, might not produce a direct return for them.

"I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy."

The Heritage Foundation does profess to be a conservative think tank. Neither they, nor I have ever tried to downplay that fact. The fact that they are conservative doesn't make them wrong.


-During Reagan's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Bush 41's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Clinton's last year in office, the rate of increase was much higher than the previous year.

-Don't get me started on "W." Federal spending under George W. Bush has skyrocketed and the economy has plummeted.

Just when we start to get it right, some other dummy comes in and messes it all up.


"Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K."

I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying a higher tax rate than the poor. I have a problem with raising that tax rate even further. I don't care what it was during the Clinton years. I have a problem with Obama's reasoning behind increasing tax rates for some, and decreasing it for others.

Everyone knows that some people work harder than others. We've all witnessed it. If John Q chooses to work 60 hours a week to advance his career, and Henry Y prefers to spend time playing video games, who is to say that Henry deserves some of the extra income John has earned? Is that fairness? I call it completely unfair.

Not only is it unfair, it doesn't work (according to the House Joint Economic Committee Report, April 1996)

The wealthy and their paid mouthpieces keep telling us that if we just let them keep a little more of the money they earn, that they will then re invest that money in new jobs. Some top earners are now making 700% more than the average "Joe" I have to ask, how much more than the rest of us will they have to make before they feel safe enough start doing what they keep saying they're going to do? 1000%, no? maybe 10,000% Because I'm beginning to think that it's a trick question.