Friday, September 26, 2008

Musings

Blogging has been non-existent because of work and my campaign, but it's Friday night, and I had to stay home to watch the debate. So, without further ado, some observations:

For those Democrats who say that Obama is going to restore America's greatness, which country is now the greatest?

How can Obama give a tax break to 95% of the people in this country if one third doesn't pay taxes? Is he going to lower their FICA?

Why is it that Sarah Palin is considered an inadequate Vice President because she has no foreign policy experience, but that is okay for Obama, whom the Democrats have selected as their Presidential nominee? And why do they seem to forget that if Palin did become the President, there are these collections of bureaucrats called the "State Department" who may be able to assist her?

Why do we never hear all of the stupid things that Joe Biden says?

During campaigning, I have found that the poor are not automatically Democratic voters. In a way, this makes perfect sense to me. Thirty-four years ago, I applied for unemployment, and found that it was easier to get a job. I took student aid for my undergraduate, and learned to never do that again for my MPA and my law degree. If you look closely, you will find that the bureaucrats who are supposed to provide service find it easier to deny, delay and obfuscate than to actually provide service. There is a rich field to be tilled by the Republicans if they are willing to try.

With the mess of the economy, why aren't Republicans hoping that Obama wins, just so they can have two years of saying "I told you so!"

Who doesn't think that if Obama is elected and he gives $5,000 for each student to afford college, that the tuition will not increase by exactly $5,000 per year?
I thought s

11 comments:

Mark T said...

At least you realize now that all American workers pay the 14.2% FICA tax. Now if I could just get you to see that investors don't pay that tax at all, so that when you take both income tax and FICA into account, working people pay more tax than investors.

There's progress here, but you still can't help yourself - "one third doesn't pay taxes" ... yada blah yada ... it's like a reflex.

Dave Budge said...

Mark, so, if I understand, you assert that the business portion of FICA would otherwise be paid to the employees if not collected by employers and then paid to the government. Right?

By that logic, it seems, that corporate income taxes are simply passed through to both employees and consumers? Which makes the argument that corporate and business taxes are actually a tax on individuals. Right? Thus people with money who consume more pay more taxes.

Mark T said...

When I hire someone, I commit to pay out a certain sum of money for those services. I don't really care where the money goes - the fact that a certain portion is diverted to the government before the employee gets it is immaterial.

It's simple economics.

I am not so sure that the tax on corporations is paid by employees and consumers. In simple economics, corporations charge the maximum they can for thier products, and don't have the ability to willy nilly pass expenses along. A tax on profits is borne by the corporation itself - otherwise, it is not maximizing profits.

Dave Budge said...

It's not simple economics. IN fact, there are complex models that try to determine how much of a tax is paid by either the corporation or the employee/consumer.

Which was exactly my point. Your oversimplification of the FICA tax argument is misleading.

If you're interested I could point you to some books on the issue. (Econ 101 level books.)

Mark T said...

Uh, thanks but no thanks. I'll pass.

My argument on FICA is pretty basic - I could see you arguing that the employee is only working for after-tax pay, and that might complicate things a bit, but from the employer's standpoint, the cost of having an employee aboard is his wage+benefit+payroll tax. Those are the obligations he assumes in exchange for labor. The money is sprayed all over.

As an old subscriber of National Review, I'm aware that the point about corporations not paying taxes, which is extremely simplistic on your part, is a matter of degree - it's not totally one way or the other. In a monopoly or oligopoly, corporations can indeed act as pass-through entities. But in a marketplace where there is adequate competition, companies have maximized profits, that ability is not present.

I know the perceived double taxation of investors breaks your heart, and when you also shed a tear for double taxation of wages, I'll buy you an O'Doules.

Dave Budge said...

Mark, you're making assumptions here that aren't real. What I'm saying, and if you even remember Econ 101, that a change in taxes effects prices to some degree. That change, then, affects where the supply and demand lines intersect. some portion of the tax, it is thought, is picked up by consumers in some part and corporations in some part (not withstanding the fact that corporations only exist on paper.)

What I'm saying is that it's you who oversimplifies the issue here (and you do it with such certitude.) So, for the love of god, would you please stop making economic pronouncements? You don't know what you're talking about.

Steve said...

Mark - Did you notice that the statement was 95% of the population will receive a tax cut? Obama is not saying that he is going to reduce the FICA tax. And when you count in EIC, probably more than one third don't pay income tax.
So how is he going to do this, or is it just so much empty rhetoric? Ah, but the question answers itself now, doesn't it.

Mark T said...

Steve - all you have to do is read about it. The plan is to offset all taxes, including payroll.

Here I am defending Obama. Read my blog sometime (you don't get out much, I know); you'll see I'm not a blind follower. Uh, Steve ... that comment is directed directly at you.

Dave - you present a slightly more complicated picture than your student, but it was you who said that

"By that logic, it seems, that corporate income taxes are simply passed through to both employees and consumers? Which makes the argument that corporate and business taxes are actually a tax on individuals. Right? Thus people with money who consume more pay more taxes."

That's your argument, that's what I responded to, and you came on with your usual compensatory arrogance and haughtiness and said I should study Econ 101, like you're the first right winger who ever said that or felt that he owned the subject (even as we swim in turmoil from following your prescriptions for deregulation) - it was me who said

"As an old subscriber of National Review, I'm aware that the point about corporations not paying taxes, which is extremely simplistic on your part, is a matter of degree - it's not totally one way or the other."

and you came back and affirmed that and are now back to econ 101 accusations.

You're a case for study, I'll grant you that. You're not a simple right winger, but you are a right winger, and you do fall back on simple bromides and resort to name calling - you just do it in a more nuanced fashion.

Steve said...

Mark - Your attempt at pseudo-intellectualism succeeds only as far as the pseudo part. Please tell me where Obama has promised to lower or even offset the FICA tax.
Again, you defend the indefensible by making up "facts" which is intellectually dishonest. You are of course only interested in greater control by the government of all aspects of the economy, and by extension, of individuals. I reject that which you so clearly embrace.

Jim Lang said...

I'm extremely sorry I wasted a minute of my life reading this sorry excuse for a discussion.

Insults are boring.

Mark T said...

As I said, Steve - you only need to read his web site to get the straight information.

Don't be so insulated.

Mr. Lang - you remind me of these people who call in TV polls to voice their opinion that they have no opinion.