AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

But one important difference between MACs and MALs is that MACs mostly trust themselves to spend their own money to their best benefit than they trust the government to do that for them.

. . . .The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year's immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year's engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama's deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation's history. And the 2013 deficit is supposed to be after several years of economic recovery, funds are being returned from the financial bailouts, and we are out of Iraq.

Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama's massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama's tax-hike cut-off of $250,000. (With interest, the tax hike would rise to more than $162,000 in 10 years, and over $20,000 a year if paid annually the following 10 years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage. . . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

Author:
Dr. Michael J. Boskin, Principal Occupation: T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Recent Business Experience: Dr. Boskin is also a Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research; and serves on the Commerce Department's Advisory Committee on the National Income and Product Accounts. He is Chief Executive Officer and President of Boskin & Co., an economic consulting company. Public Company Directorships: Oracle Corporation; Shinsei Bank; Vodafone Group.

As long as you are willing to do the same for me; that's the beauty of taxation! If you are willing to buy into the parts which help you, you ought to be willing to buy into doing your part to help others. Otherwise, it just smacks of greed.

Cycloptichorn

Rich businessmen who sit on the boards of public companies coming out against tax hikes?

Shocking!

Does he realize that a 'do-nothing' budget would actually do nothing? I understand that for the rich, everything's cool if nothing gets done. Not so much for everyone else.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Rich businessmen who sit on the boards of public companies coming out against tax hikes?

Shocking!

Does he realize that a 'do-nothing' budget would actually do nothing? I understand that for the rich, everything's cool if nothing gets done. Not so much for everyone else.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of focusing on his resume, why don't you take a look at the numbers he is putting out there. Really look at them.

Does Galt line come to mind then?

Great. When do you want to start sending those checks to pay my mortgage? I won't be able to if his scenario is anywhere near what we can expect, so I know you won't mind. Could you throw in a little extra for the light bill and trash pickup?

No need to wait. I know I won't be able to pay my mortgage much less yours, so you can go ahead and start now. It's the unselfish and ungreedy thing to do don't you think?

Quote:

You didn't frame the argument. I did.

So what? You pretend this somehow makes you master, or in control of the discussion?

If you want to discuss something different from the argument I framed, then frame your own. At this time I am more interested in the topic I put out there and prefer to discuss that and choose not to be diverted from it. If nobody wishes to discuss it then I'll go find something else to do.

Williams alleged that our economic problems are due to immorality. (Hence, the title of his thesis: "Our Problem Is Immorality.") Then he attempts to manipulate the reader by claiming he can support his thesis by having everyone answer one simple "yes or no" question: "Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another?" Williams then claimed, if you answer "yes" to the question, then you support slavery and "legalized theft."

It's a FALSE DILEMMA ...

Lotsa opinion with nothing to back it up.

It is not moral and just for one person to be forced to help pay for the charity given to other persons.

"Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no."

"Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy."

You and Marie Antoinette may stand tall upon your lavish balconies, look down upon the poor and starving masses, and mockingly declare, "Let them eat cake." And then the angry downtrodden masses will likely rise up in rebellion and your heads will likely be in danger. . . .

Oh well. Perhaps you are not interested in a history lesson, but providing the very poor with minimal subsistence is truly in the best interests of our society as a whole.