[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]
The clear message: total government revenues collected go UP in the years following the tax cut as the economy expands and people earn more and pay more in our progressive tax rate structure. [/quote]

I think that message is far from settled. From US Treasury numbers:

You’ll note that in the years immediately following the Kennedy tax cuts, revenue was relatively flat. In the years following the Reagan tax cuts in 81 and 82, revenues declined, and it took almost 6 years for them to return to levels before the cuts. In the years immediately following the Bush I tax increases, revnues increased. And after a small decline during the recession of the early 90’s, after the Clinton tax increase, revenues sharply increased (as the economy grew at historically high rates). After the Bush II tax cuts, revenues initially fell sharply for 4 years(beginning with the recession of the early part of this decade), and have risen since but still not to the level they were in 2000.

As I said, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts raise revenues. Historically, that has simply not consistently been the case. Other factors, of course, have been present. The economy is cyclical, and marginal tax rates are not the only factor which drives it. But the perfect model has not been created. At best, supply side theory has provem to be an incomplete model. At worst, a total failure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

We simply don’t live in the same reality (and I’m not judging your reality). So, I will not try to convince you that taxing individuals and businesses decreases economic activity and job creation.

In my reality, however, I have been thinking about starting two businesses, and hiring at least one employee, but I keep thinking of all the start-up costs and taxes in CA and I consistently lose my motivation to get going on it with a passion. However, that is just me, I’m sure. Maybe I’ll wait to get started in 2010 or so, after we see what pans out with the economy, healthcare, etc.[/quote]

Please do try to convince me. If my opinion changes, then I win, not lose. Please show me compelling empirical evidence that small marginal tax rate increases damage the economy. (or conversely, that marginal tax rate reductions improve the economy) I’m more than willing to consider the possibility. I have just never seen it. And I have looked, maybe in the wrong places. My anecdotal experience as a business advisor over the last 30 years tells me the same thing. Business owners complain about taxes. And then continue to do whatever they need to do to make their business grow. Never once did any of them (and there were hundreds) tell me that they didn’t hire because income taxes were too high. Not once.

With regards to starting a new business, which CA taxes are you referring to? Annual LLC or minimum Franchise tax? I don’t have a recollection of those changing significantly in recent years, have they?

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

We simply don’t live in the same reality (and I’m not judging your reality). So, I will not try to convince you that taxing individuals and businesses decreases economic activity and job creation.

In my reality, however, I have been thinking about starting two businesses, and hiring at least one employee, but I keep thinking of all the start-up costs and taxes in CA and I consistently lose my motivation to get going on it with a passion. However, that is just me, I’m sure. Maybe I’ll wait to get started in 2010 or so, after we see what pans out with the economy, healthcare, etc.[/quote]

Please do try to convince me. If my opinion changes, then I win, not lose. Please show me compelling empirical evidence that small marginal tax rate increases damage the economy. (or conversely, that marginal tax rate reductions improve the economy) I’m more than willing to consider the possibility. I have just never seen it. And I have looked, maybe in the wrong places. My anecdotal experience as a business advisor over the last 30 years tells me the same thing. Business owners complain about taxes. And then continue to do whatever they need to do to make their business grow. Never once did any of them (and there were hundreds) tell me that they didn’t hire because income taxes were too high. Not once.

With regards to starting a new business, which CA taxes are you referring to? Annual LLC or minimum Franchise tax? I don’t have a recollection of those changing significantly in recent years, have they?

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

We simply don’t live in the same reality (and I’m not judging your reality). So, I will not try to convince you that taxing individuals and businesses decreases economic activity and job creation.

In my reality, however, I have been thinking about starting two businesses, and hiring at least one employee, but I keep thinking of all the start-up costs and taxes in CA and I consistently lose my motivation to get going on it with a passion. However, that is just me, I’m sure. Maybe I’ll wait to get started in 2010 or so, after we see what pans out with the economy, healthcare, etc.[/quote]

Please do try to convince me. If my opinion changes, then I win, not lose. Please show me compelling empirical evidence that small marginal tax rate increases damage the economy. (or conversely, that marginal tax rate reductions improve the economy) I’m more than willing to consider the possibility. I have just never seen it. And I have looked, maybe in the wrong places. My anecdotal experience as a business advisor over the last 30 years tells me the same thing. Business owners complain about taxes. And then continue to do whatever they need to do to make their business grow. Never once did any of them (and there were hundreds) tell me that they didn’t hire because income taxes were too high. Not once.

With regards to starting a new business, which CA taxes are you referring to? Annual LLC or minimum Franchise tax? I don’t have a recollection of those changing significantly in recent years, have they?

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

We simply don’t live in the same reality (and I’m not judging your reality). So, I will not try to convince you that taxing individuals and businesses decreases economic activity and job creation.

In my reality, however, I have been thinking about starting two businesses, and hiring at least one employee, but I keep thinking of all the start-up costs and taxes in CA and I consistently lose my motivation to get going on it with a passion. However, that is just me, I’m sure. Maybe I’ll wait to get started in 2010 or so, after we see what pans out with the economy, healthcare, etc.[/quote]

Please do try to convince me. If my opinion changes, then I win, not lose. Please show me compelling empirical evidence that small marginal tax rate increases damage the economy. (or conversely, that marginal tax rate reductions improve the economy) I’m more than willing to consider the possibility. I have just never seen it. And I have looked, maybe in the wrong places. My anecdotal experience as a business advisor over the last 30 years tells me the same thing. Business owners complain about taxes. And then continue to do whatever they need to do to make their business grow. Never once did any of them (and there were hundreds) tell me that they didn’t hire because income taxes were too high. Not once.

With regards to starting a new business, which CA taxes are you referring to? Annual LLC or minimum Franchise tax? I don’t have a recollection of those changing significantly in recent years, have they?

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

We simply don’t live in the same reality (and I’m not judging your reality). So, I will not try to convince you that taxing individuals and businesses decreases economic activity and job creation.

In my reality, however, I have been thinking about starting two businesses, and hiring at least one employee, but I keep thinking of all the start-up costs and taxes in CA and I consistently lose my motivation to get going on it with a passion. However, that is just me, I’m sure. Maybe I’ll wait to get started in 2010 or so, after we see what pans out with the economy, healthcare, etc.[/quote]

Please do try to convince me. If my opinion changes, then I win, not lose. Please show me compelling empirical evidence that small marginal tax rate increases damage the economy. (or conversely, that marginal tax rate reductions improve the economy) I’m more than willing to consider the possibility. I have just never seen it. And I have looked, maybe in the wrong places. My anecdotal experience as a business advisor over the last 30 years tells me the same thing. Business owners complain about taxes. And then continue to do whatever they need to do to make their business grow. Never once did any of them (and there were hundreds) tell me that they didn’t hire because income taxes were too high. Not once.

With regards to starting a new business, which CA taxes are you referring to? Annual LLC or minimum Franchise tax? I don’t have a recollection of those changing significantly in recent years, have they?

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

You can’t be serious with this post. This is my favorite quote:

“So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee.”

I’m an attorney who works on tax issues all day, and carefully follow tax policy, and if the liberal party leaders/Obama do what they say, we’ll have a boat load of new taxes and regulation, whether cap and tax, higher CG taxes, deduction caps, adjusted phaseouts, etc. The AMT comment was to show the myopic examination of the impact of federal taxes on high-income earners in your article. Simply not an apples to apples comparison, by any stretch.

And if you think the blue dog Democrats will fight Obama and Democrat party leaders, perhaps. However, they’ll vote for enough of these to undercut the US economy at its weakest period in decades as witnessed with cap and trade.

As a die-hard party supporter, if you think this is the road to revive the US economy, best of luck in the mid-terms.

In fact, if I were trying, I couldn’t design a better plan to kill the Democrat’s electoral prospects in 2010. How quickly the Democrats have forgotten their mantra; it’s the economy stupid. These taxes and new regulations will be a rapid poison going through the system. Job creation in this environment? No chance.[/quote]

I’m not kidding at all. And we’re in the same business. (though I’m mostly retired from that now.)

How many of them have come up for a vote in committee? How many have come up for a vote in either house? How many specific recommendations for raising taxes have come from the white house? Not ideas floated, but specific recommendations.(you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, we both know the answers.) Same with the silly predictions of confiscating guns and rounding up people in internment camps. Fear tactics without basis in reality.

I am not a die hard party supporter. Not by a long shot. But I also don’t buy the crap about lowering taxes strengthen the economy. There is simply no empirical evidence that it’s true. If anything it’s the opposite. It didn’t work for Reagan. Tax receipts went DOWN significantly after ERTA, TEFRA recovered about 1/3 of those losses and the other 7 were insignificant changes. And it didn’t work for Bush II. Nor is there any evidence that all higher taxes stifles the economy. Or that marginal taxes above a certain rate creates a disinsentive to work. No matter how hard the GOP clings to it, supply side economics is simply a failed economic theory. (Check the records, the stock market has done considerably better under democratic administrations than they have under republican administrations.)

The Dems may screw up for 2010. But it won’t be because of a health care bill. And it won’t be taxes. It’s more likely to be arrogance. And whatever it is, in order for the GOP to advance at all, it will have to be a massive screw up. Because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly since the election, it’s base keeps shrinking. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does. The Sotomayor hearings are just the latest. (and as I said before, I don’t think that is a good thing.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

You can’t be serious with this post. This is my favorite quote:

“So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee.”

I’m an attorney who works on tax issues all day, and carefully follow tax policy, and if the liberal party leaders/Obama do what they say, we’ll have a boat load of new taxes and regulation, whether cap and tax, higher CG taxes, deduction caps, adjusted phaseouts, etc. The AMT comment was to show the myopic examination of the impact of federal taxes on high-income earners in your article. Simply not an apples to apples comparison, by any stretch.

And if you think the blue dog Democrats will fight Obama and Democrat party leaders, perhaps. However, they’ll vote for enough of these to undercut the US economy at its weakest period in decades as witnessed with cap and trade.

As a die-hard party supporter, if you think this is the road to revive the US economy, best of luck in the mid-terms.

In fact, if I were trying, I couldn’t design a better plan to kill the Democrat’s electoral prospects in 2010. How quickly the Democrats have forgotten their mantra; it’s the economy stupid. These taxes and new regulations will be a rapid poison going through the system. Job creation in this environment? No chance.[/quote]

I’m not kidding at all. And we’re in the same business. (though I’m mostly retired from that now.)

How many of them have come up for a vote in committee? How many have come up for a vote in either house? How many specific recommendations for raising taxes have come from the white house? Not ideas floated, but specific recommendations.(you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, we both know the answers.) Same with the silly predictions of confiscating guns and rounding up people in internment camps. Fear tactics without basis in reality.

I am not a die hard party supporter. Not by a long shot. But I also don’t buy the crap about lowering taxes strengthen the economy. There is simply no empirical evidence that it’s true. If anything it’s the opposite. It didn’t work for Reagan. Tax receipts went DOWN significantly after ERTA, TEFRA recovered about 1/3 of those losses and the other 7 were insignificant changes. And it didn’t work for Bush II. Nor is there any evidence that all higher taxes stifles the economy. Or that marginal taxes above a certain rate creates a disinsentive to work. No matter how hard the GOP clings to it, supply side economics is simply a failed economic theory. (Check the records, the stock market has done considerably better under democratic administrations than they have under republican administrations.)

The Dems may screw up for 2010. But it won’t be because of a health care bill. And it won’t be taxes. It’s more likely to be arrogance. And whatever it is, in order for the GOP to advance at all, it will have to be a massive screw up. Because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly since the election, it’s base keeps shrinking. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does. The Sotomayor hearings are just the latest. (and as I said before, I don’t think that is a good thing.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

You can’t be serious with this post. This is my favorite quote:

“So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee.”

I’m an attorney who works on tax issues all day, and carefully follow tax policy, and if the liberal party leaders/Obama do what they say, we’ll have a boat load of new taxes and regulation, whether cap and tax, higher CG taxes, deduction caps, adjusted phaseouts, etc. The AMT comment was to show the myopic examination of the impact of federal taxes on high-income earners in your article. Simply not an apples to apples comparison, by any stretch.

And if you think the blue dog Democrats will fight Obama and Democrat party leaders, perhaps. However, they’ll vote for enough of these to undercut the US economy at its weakest period in decades as witnessed with cap and trade.

As a die-hard party supporter, if you think this is the road to revive the US economy, best of luck in the mid-terms.

In fact, if I were trying, I couldn’t design a better plan to kill the Democrat’s electoral prospects in 2010. How quickly the Democrats have forgotten their mantra; it’s the economy stupid. These taxes and new regulations will be a rapid poison going through the system. Job creation in this environment? No chance.[/quote]

I’m not kidding at all. And we’re in the same business. (though I’m mostly retired from that now.)

How many of them have come up for a vote in committee? How many have come up for a vote in either house? How many specific recommendations for raising taxes have come from the white house? Not ideas floated, but specific recommendations.(you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, we both know the answers.) Same with the silly predictions of confiscating guns and rounding up people in internment camps. Fear tactics without basis in reality.

I am not a die hard party supporter. Not by a long shot. But I also don’t buy the crap about lowering taxes strengthen the economy. There is simply no empirical evidence that it’s true. If anything it’s the opposite. It didn’t work for Reagan. Tax receipts went DOWN significantly after ERTA, TEFRA recovered about 1/3 of those losses and the other 7 were insignificant changes. And it didn’t work for Bush II. Nor is there any evidence that all higher taxes stifles the economy. Or that marginal taxes above a certain rate creates a disinsentive to work. No matter how hard the GOP clings to it, supply side economics is simply a failed economic theory. (Check the records, the stock market has done considerably better under democratic administrations than they have under republican administrations.)

The Dems may screw up for 2010. But it won’t be because of a health care bill. And it won’t be taxes. It’s more likely to be arrogance. And whatever it is, in order for the GOP to advance at all, it will have to be a massive screw up. Because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly since the election, it’s base keeps shrinking. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does. The Sotomayor hearings are just the latest. (and as I said before, I don’t think that is a good thing.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

You can’t be serious with this post. This is my favorite quote:

“So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee.”

I’m an attorney who works on tax issues all day, and carefully follow tax policy, and if the liberal party leaders/Obama do what they say, we’ll have a boat load of new taxes and regulation, whether cap and tax, higher CG taxes, deduction caps, adjusted phaseouts, etc. The AMT comment was to show the myopic examination of the impact of federal taxes on high-income earners in your article. Simply not an apples to apples comparison, by any stretch.

And if you think the blue dog Democrats will fight Obama and Democrat party leaders, perhaps. However, they’ll vote for enough of these to undercut the US economy at its weakest period in decades as witnessed with cap and trade.

As a die-hard party supporter, if you think this is the road to revive the US economy, best of luck in the mid-terms.

In fact, if I were trying, I couldn’t design a better plan to kill the Democrat’s electoral prospects in 2010. How quickly the Democrats have forgotten their mantra; it’s the economy stupid. These taxes and new regulations will be a rapid poison going through the system. Job creation in this environment? No chance.[/quote]

I’m not kidding at all. And we’re in the same business. (though I’m mostly retired from that now.)

How many of them have come up for a vote in committee? How many have come up for a vote in either house? How many specific recommendations for raising taxes have come from the white house? Not ideas floated, but specific recommendations.(you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, we both know the answers.) Same with the silly predictions of confiscating guns and rounding up people in internment camps. Fear tactics without basis in reality.

I am not a die hard party supporter. Not by a long shot. But I also don’t buy the crap about lowering taxes strengthen the economy. There is simply no empirical evidence that it’s true. If anything it’s the opposite. It didn’t work for Reagan. Tax receipts went DOWN significantly after ERTA, TEFRA recovered about 1/3 of those losses and the other 7 were insignificant changes. And it didn’t work for Bush II. Nor is there any evidence that all higher taxes stifles the economy. Or that marginal taxes above a certain rate creates a disinsentive to work. No matter how hard the GOP clings to it, supply side economics is simply a failed economic theory. (Check the records, the stock market has done considerably better under democratic administrations than they have under republican administrations.)

The Dems may screw up for 2010. But it won’t be because of a health care bill. And it won’t be taxes. It’s more likely to be arrogance. And whatever it is, in order for the GOP to advance at all, it will have to be a massive screw up. Because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly since the election, it’s base keeps shrinking. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does. The Sotomayor hearings are just the latest. (and as I said before, I don’t think that is a good thing.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]

You can’t be serious with this post. This is my favorite quote:

“So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee.”

I’m an attorney who works on tax issues all day, and carefully follow tax policy, and if the liberal party leaders/Obama do what they say, we’ll have a boat load of new taxes and regulation, whether cap and tax, higher CG taxes, deduction caps, adjusted phaseouts, etc. The AMT comment was to show the myopic examination of the impact of federal taxes on high-income earners in your article. Simply not an apples to apples comparison, by any stretch.

And if you think the blue dog Democrats will fight Obama and Democrat party leaders, perhaps. However, they’ll vote for enough of these to undercut the US economy at its weakest period in decades as witnessed with cap and trade.

As a die-hard party supporter, if you think this is the road to revive the US economy, best of luck in the mid-terms.

In fact, if I were trying, I couldn’t design a better plan to kill the Democrat’s electoral prospects in 2010. How quickly the Democrats have forgotten their mantra; it’s the economy stupid. These taxes and new regulations will be a rapid poison going through the system. Job creation in this environment? No chance.[/quote]

I’m not kidding at all. And we’re in the same business. (though I’m mostly retired from that now.)

How many of them have come up for a vote in committee? How many have come up for a vote in either house? How many specific recommendations for raising taxes have come from the white house? Not ideas floated, but specific recommendations.(you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, we both know the answers.) Same with the silly predictions of confiscating guns and rounding up people in internment camps. Fear tactics without basis in reality.

I am not a die hard party supporter. Not by a long shot. But I also don’t buy the crap about lowering taxes strengthen the economy. There is simply no empirical evidence that it’s true. If anything it’s the opposite. It didn’t work for Reagan. Tax receipts went DOWN significantly after ERTA, TEFRA recovered about 1/3 of those losses and the other 7 were insignificant changes. And it didn’t work for Bush II. Nor is there any evidence that all higher taxes stifles the economy. Or that marginal taxes above a certain rate creates a disinsentive to work. No matter how hard the GOP clings to it, supply side economics is simply a failed economic theory. (Check the records, the stock market has done considerably better under democratic administrations than they have under republican administrations.)

The Dems may screw up for 2010. But it won’t be because of a health care bill. And it won’t be taxes. It’s more likely to be arrogance. And whatever it is, in order for the GOP to advance at all, it will have to be a massive screw up. Because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly since the election, it’s base keeps shrinking. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does. The Sotomayor hearings are just the latest. (and as I said before, I don’t think that is a good thing.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]
I think your comments made more of an anti-tax point than you intended . . . we had a great economy then. It is terrible now. So, let’s increase the marginal federal brackets to 39%? Also, of course, like most lefty examinations on these issues, there was an omission of other new proposed taxes: increased capital gains rates, payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limiting mortgage int. deduction, possible cap and trade taxes. Not to mention, the more pronounced impact of the alternate minimum tax.

Of course, we have liberal states like CA and NY passing new taxes whenever possible.

I used to think we were going to have decades of liberal government with Obama et. al. However, as I see it, they are so going to derail the economy with all of this regulation and taxation, they’ll be lucky to escape 2010 with anything intact. Hope and change doesn’t mean much when you don’t have a job.[/quote]

For 1, the top marginal tax will not go to 39%, it will go to 36.5%. (35% + 1.5% surcharge).

And no, it does not make an anti-tax point. Just the opposite. It proves that higher tax rates are not necessarily incompatible with a strong economy. (It does not, however, prove that higher taxes improve the economy, nor do lower taxes weaken the economy, it is simply correlative.)

I haven’t omitted any other “new” proposed tax increases because there aren’t any. Nor is there any evidence that there will be a more pronounced impact of alt min tax. That entire discussion of higher taxes is almost entirely a right-wing talking point, not based on reality. So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee. Most of them would not get the support of the blue dog dems anyway, and are unlikely to pass even if they did come up for a vote.

It seems to be getting more and more unlikely that the GOP will resurface as anything more than a regional party, regardless of what the Dems do. Their treatment of Sotomayor in her hearings have probably driven away the small percentage of hispanic votes they still had. The best thing that can happen for the democrats is the vote to go purely along party lines. They can’t win with nothing but old white men and the south. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

[Author]

Posts