Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

So your income must be real low!!!

"Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010."

Keep this quite. Cyclo is wishing for the "decrease".

Haha, on the link '100 economists against Obama's tax plan,' there are only 90 names. And one of them is Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain 2008 surrogate, so it's something of a stretch to count him.

More importantly: so what? It isn't as if Economists aren't partisan as well. There are plenty of supporters of the supply-side economic model, most of whom want themselves to be rich and benefit from it; why should it matter to anyone that they signed a piece of paper?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Haha, on the link '100 economists against Obama's tax plan,' there are only 90 names. And one of them is Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain 2008 surrogate, so it's something of a stretch to count him.

If you follow the other links there are more then a hundred. It's a running tally.

Quote:

More importantly: so what? It isn't as if Economists aren't partisan as well. There are plenty of supporters of the supply-side economic model, most of whom want themselves to be rich and benefit from it; why should it matter to anyone that they signed a piece of paper?

Cycloptichorn

Because they are experts in their field. You would actually ignore experts opinions because you fear their politics? If you look, there are even Nobel Prize winners, though none are Krugman.

I have to admit that I am not even the tiniest bit surprised that you would react this way though. You are as partisan as they come.

Just the reality you ignore.

I do not expect to change you mind, yet there may actually be someone out there who is undecided and needs to hear the truth.

That is what I am here for, to post the truth.

No, Cyclo, you do not think. You react to what you are told.

Think what you want. Believe your messiah is coming to lower your taxes and make the world a better place. That is what you are told to do.

So just do it!