Economic liberals state your case for Obama:

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

One of my concerns with Barack Obama is that he seems to relish his own popularity, deeming himself an agent of change while using religious terms to describe himself. What happens when one of his smart advisors makes an unpopular, yet necessary, recommendation? I wonder how open he would be when the change he's seeking will abandon a segment of his base. He'll have to have spine to deal with being hated by his own.

He seems to be a leader who thrives on emotion over logic. Isn't emotion his whole appeal? He inspires his followers to unity. He makes us believe that change is going to come. Yet the President will never be a uniter if he wants to be effective. He has to hurt feelings, step on toes, cut budgets, cut programs, fire people, offend constituencies, and a number of other unpleasant tasks. I just don't see Oprah's guy being right for that job.

I agree with you. As i said, I am not 100% sold on Obama. My final vote will be cast once the RNC and DNC winners can start outlining more practical solutions to specific issues. I agree that Obama cannot run an entire campaign on rainbow fumes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Hey, listen, I pay more than my share of taxes, including our friend AMT. I dont like it. But I dont pretend we can operate as a country without paying taxes.

Most tax protestors do not go to jail for federal income tax evasion. The government accrues much more revenue by auditing credit claims. Although your response is inspiring. It reminds me of the likes of Patrick Henry and Joan of Arc.

I have no windmills, just pragmatic hopes of retiring some day. And then it's off to Monaco, Italy or Hong Kong, with a stop in Tahiti during wintertime, provided I can use the internet to watch the Cougs.

No grand visions here, just selfish concerns for me and my family. We've asked for nothing, received nothing and want to be burdened by nobody. Most people really want that, but they are not frank enough to admit it.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As I see Obama he wants to buy ever vote, free health care for all, more welfare for all, more government jobs for all, rigid restrictions on capital, more guarantees of utopia at no price except for rich Republicans and rich companies.

I know I've grossly oversimplified as all political speech is one of exaggeration and hyperbole. But when I hear people considering him to be this Great Leader, I think I'm in North Korea hearing Kim Il Song and contrived support.

How many times are we going to go through this?

1. Archaea asks liberals why they support liberal economic policies.

2. Liberals explain why.

3. Archaea's argument is then reduced to, "I hate paying taxes. Taxes suck. I can't demonstrate why a moderate tax hike on the rich will hurt the economy, but stop taking my money."

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have no windmills, just pragmatic hopes of retiring some day. And then it's off to Monaco, Italy or Hong Kong, with a stop in Tahiti during wintertime, provided I can use the internet to watch the Cougs.

No grand visions here, just selfish concerns for me and my family. We've asked for nothing, received nothing and want to be burdened by nobody. Most people really want that, but they are not frank enough to admit it.

In that case, luck be to you and your kin.

BTW, Italy's taxes are insane. Hong Kong is almost the opposite, with a flat tax for personal income and quite a business friendly environment Monaco is a well-know tax shelter haven, so maybe you will bump into VV while you are there.

Wonder how the tax landscape in China and HK will evolve as Shanghai gets more and more Westernized. WFOEs are the lifeblood of a lot of our lage domestic clients with Asian ops.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

How many times are we going to go through this?

1. Archaea asks liberals why they support liberal economic policies.

2. Liberals explain why.

3. Archaea's argument is then reduced to, "I hate paying taxes. Taxes suck. I can't demonstrate why a moderate tax hike on the rich will hurt the economy, but stop taking my money."

Neither can people show it won't hurt the economy. You know this well. There will be models on both sides of the equation, as the variables are too complex to adequately forecast.

Economic liberals take the view, government programs are essential so let's find a way to fund them. It's that simple.

However, we have no comparable economic model to the most complex model, the US. All other economies in some way or another are dependent upon our success or failure.

You can cite a study or forecast that predicts "modest" increases may demonstrate some degree of elasticity, but you can't show any ironclad models that show how much is modest and whether program is net beneficial.

In reality, nobody wants their own goat to be gored. You will cloak your goring of another by a complicated prognostication but will ignore the holes in the assumptions or lack of evidence. You rarely apply business logic or modeling. That is my principle complaint, that economic liberals misuse and ignore the benefits of the market and good business principles. They rely upon others to fix their mistakes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

In that case, luck be to you and your kin.

BTW, Italy's taxes are insane. Hong Kong is almost the opposite, with a flat tax for personal income and quite a business friendly environment Monaco is a well-know tax shelter haven, so maybe you will bump into VV while you are there.

Wonder how the tax landscape in China and HK will evolve as Shanghai gets more and more Westernized. WFOEs are the lifeblood of a lot of our lage domestic clients with Asian ops.

Well Hong Kong is fine but Shenzhen is dynamite as well. Hainan has some great opportunities and other special economic zones are worth investigating.

I didn't say I wished to own anything in Italy. No income would ever touch Italy, I may be daft but not that daft.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Neither can people show it won't hurt the economy. You know this well. There will be models on both sides of the equation, as the variables are too complex to adequately forecast.

Economic liberals take the view, government programs are essential so let's find a way to fund them. It's that simple.

However, we have no comparable economic model to the most complex model, the US. All other economies in some way or another are dependent upon our success or failure.

You can cite a study or forecast that predicts "modest" increases may demonstrate some degree of elasticity, but you can't show any ironclad models that show how much is modest and whether program is net beneficial.

In reality, nobody wants their own goat to be gored. You will cloak your goring of another by a complicated prognostication but will ignore the holes in the assumptions or lack of evidence. You rarely apply business logic or modeling. That is my principle complaint, that economic liberals misuse and ignore the benefits of the market and good business principles. They rely upon others to fix their mistakes.

No. Nobody who studies mainstream economics ignores markets, liberal or not.

Kudos for using the word elasticity, but the word you should have used was inelastic. The basic question is this: Will rich people slack off if we raise their taxes? Probably not. Many work even harder to recuperate lost income, and be more productive.

We can't compare with others, but we have evidence from our own economy across time. How much hurt did Clinton's hikes on the rich put the economy? FDR's?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

No. Nobody who studies mainstream economics ignores markets, liberal or not.

Kudos for using the word elasticity, but the word you should have used was inelastic. The basic question is this: Will rich people slack off if we raise their taxes? Probably not. Many work even harder to recuperate lost income, and be more productive.

We can't compare with others, but we have evidence from our own economy across time. How much hurt did Clinton's hikes on the rich put the economy? FDR's?

I would like add my 2 cents to this discussion, but I don't know who you define as rich. Income level please.

Also Obama is going to cut taxes for the middle class, what is this income level going to be.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

No. Nobody who studies mainstream economics ignores markets, liberal or not.

Kudos for using the word elasticity, but the word you should have used was inelastic. The basic question is this: Will rich people slack off if we raise their taxes? Probably not. Many work even harder to recuperate lost income, and be more productive.

We can't compare with others, but we have evidence from our own economy across time. How much hurt did Clinton's hikes on the rich put the economy? FDR's?

It's not just a question of slacking off, but if they will hold back investment, or divert investment out of the states. And when the investment climate is bad, people are looking to China, Brazil, India and even Russia. Tax rates are part of the equation, but not the only part.

I know the difference between elasticity and inelasticity. Liberal economists study the markets and try to reason around them. Liberal politicians ignore them in their calculations.

I have not seen adequate documentation that wealthy business people work harder say in Sweden to recuperate lost investment, but rather they look elsewhere or cheat on their taxes. i

Is it good social policy to adopt a tax strategy which encourages and rewards its citizenry for cheating rather than being honest?

Clinton's taxes did affect the economy in a delayed manner once the phony tech bubble burst early in W's tenure. You give too much credit to Clinton, and ignore the foibles of the tech bubble. It was phony markets that benefited his image.

We have a far more complex and different economy than FDR's time so comparisons are invalid.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I would like add my 2 cents to this discussion, but I don't know who you define as rich. Income level please.

Also Obama is going to cut taxes for the middle class, what is this income level going to be.

The other aspect I dispute that Chino doesn't depict very well; the liberal economists will argue using an arcane graph with a math equation that would make Einstein run his eyes that it doesn't hurt the economy that much or only negligibly. Whereas the question should be, "how does it help the economy in real numbers not cyber-theory?"

When that question is posed most of them are stumped.