http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/06/13/obama-tax-proposals/
Candidate Obama has introduced an array of tax proposals, which he discusses in various places on his campaign website. There are four overlapping themes in the Obama tax proposals the way I see it:
- Social engineering.
- Discrimination.
- Economic micromanagement.
- Empty populism.
Under social engineering, I would put Obama’s plan to greatly increase the dependent care tax credit. That would further encourage parents to find institutional day care for their children, rather than providing care themselves.
Under discrimination, I would put Obama’s proposed special tax break for the elderly. The federal fiscal system is already heavily tilted in favor of the elderly, thus it is unclear why Obama would want to further discriminate against the young.
Obama’s “American Opportunity Tax Credit” also creates unfair discrimination. This new tax break for college essentially increases subsidizes for future lawyers, accountants, and other professionals. Why subsidize these folks who will likely have much higher earnings than factory workers, retail clerks, and others who don’t go to college?
Under economic micromanagement, I would put Obama’s Patriot Employer Act, which provides tax breaks to certain businesses that jump through hoops related to hiring, wages, and other items. Obama wants to cut capital gains taxes on certain investments and increase capital gains taxes on others, and he is proposing various narrow energy tax breaks.
Under empty populism, I would put Obama’s railings against “tax haven abuse” and “corporate loopholes.” If Mr. Obama really wanted to reduce corporate tax avoidance–rather than just using it as a campaign prop–he would join with John McCain and call for an across-the-board corporate rate cut.
A final category might be “innocuous tax cuts that do nothing for economic growth.” Here I would put Obama’s $500 payroll tax credit called “making work pay.” If Obama had wanted to spur employment, he should have proposed a cut in the payroll tax rate, which would change the marginal incentive to work, unlike the proposed credit.
In sum, Obama’s tax proposals are pretty awful. It is true that many Republicans and Democrats have proposed similarly bad tax ideas over the years. But Obama can be contrasted with candidate McCain, who thus far has avoided narrow favoritism in his tax proposals, and favors broad-based tax reductions designed to spur economic growth.
This is “change?” Looks like more of the same failed policies and economic ignorance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Three full months after GOP-Libertarian candidate Ron Paul announced his presidential campaign would be “winding down”, he’s actually throwing in the towel for real. Yes, the man who spent over a year pledging to dismantle the United States military has finally ended his quest to be elected its Commander in Chief. Often times portrayed as “crazy”, “batshit crazy” and “absolutely freaking nuts”, Paul marched to the beat of his own drummer. A drummer that supported building a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border because immigrants are the cause of all our welfare problems.
Ron Paul never did get his chance to abolish the IRS, but his hilarious cranky old man antics certainly did abolish a little bit of the sadness in all our lives. Let’s take a look back at the magical year we shared together.
I understand that 23/6 is a satirical site. However, while some may disagree, The Huffington Post isn’t. Do a search for Ron Paul on huffingtonpost.com and you’ll find this supposedly satirical story along with legit news. At least Google News has the decency to include a “satire” tag on all sites which are. This is nothing more than a pot shot and an obvious one at that. For being the only anti-war candidate to make it this far you’d think they’d at least show some support. I suppose their desire for more powerful centeralized government overtakes their supposed wish not to kill innocent individuals who posed no threat to any of us and any idea of individual freedom.
They could have at least been factual in their smear. He does not support building a fence. He supports ending welfare, for everyone in the long run and illegal immigrants in the short term, to remove any basis for blame on them for the ailing welfare state and then allowing far easier means to cross the border. Anyone who paid any attention to his dialog noticed he treaded lightly on the subject in order to pander to both sides. Did it bother me he kept his position a bit ambiguous in order to pick up support? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact his true position was pro-immigration.
“Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another $40m or $50m for the road,” he said. “If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders.”
Doesn’t that effectively happen now? If you are a shareholder you generally have voting rights in the way things are run. Even then if you don’t like what is occuring don’t become a shareholder. Seems pretty obvious to me that just like with any business… the investors are the ones in control in the end. Whether the investor is the customer buying the final product or the shareholders funding their creation. You don’t like what is being done… take you money elsewhere.
Downsize DC
