First of all, as for the alleged four-point Democratic plan (WMD's post), I haven't seen evidence that these are in Obama's or the party's plans. (I'd grant you that telecom immunity may be imperiled.) I especially question the 25% military spending cut. Obama wants to increase force levels, for instance.

Second, yes I cherry-picked the income tax rates because that has formed the basis for the recent "socialist" campaign theme. (I'm spending too much time on these posts, so examples are the way to go...I've got work to do and World Series games to watch!!) From what I can tell looking at Obama's plans, his capital gains and dividend tax policies would basically be pre-GWB. On estate taxes, he would freeze the Bush phase-out at 2009 levels (rate and exemption), so he would be better than pre-GWB. On corporate taxes, I don't see rate increases - but I do see increased taxes for some companies from removing loopholes.

I would welcome an attempt at a tax system overhaul, and I agree that neither guy is likely to lead the charge on that. My point remains, however: whether or not one agrees with Obama's tax policies, and no matter where they fall on one's personal left-right scale, they are not far left in the broader context.

Terrible call on the run-down at third!

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I'm always amazed by the people who think, or seem to think, that economic expansion started the day Clinton raised his hand, ended the day Bush raised his, and was entirely due to Clinton's being in the White House.

I think one of many great failings of the republican party was allowing this notion to go unchallenged. I think they would have been much better served to have claimed ownership for the economic good times of the 1990s, and explained convincingly why it was republican policies that made it happen, than to run around screaming about Monica Lewinsky.

Balancing the budget? Republican idea (although Bush has destroyed that for republicans in the future)
Welfare reform? Republican idea (although by 1992 Clinton's DLC had adopted it)
Having the lowest marginal tax rates in the developed world? Pure Reaganomics

So why doesn't the American public understand this?

S.A. Owl Wrote:My point remains, however: whether or not one agrees with Obama's tax policies, and no matter where they fall on one's personal left-right scale, they are not far left in the broader context.

Terrible call on the run-down at third!

Agree on the run-down.

As for taxes, I think the validity of your statement depends on how broadly you define the context. If you compare strictly to historic US rates, you have a point. But nobody's going to move a plant from Ohio to 1994.

We are losing plants--and the jobs that go with them--to Ireland, where the corporate income tax rate is 12%. The jobs we are losing are in areas--high tech and robotics--where we should be a lot more interested in growing jobs than in things like sewing together Nikes. There are a number of other places where similar things are happening. When you have the second-highest corporate tax rates in the world, that will happen. If you're happy with that, fine. I'm not. Whether you think lower corporate rates are liberal or conservative or whatever, it's what the competition is doing and it's what we're going to have to do to compete. That's the reality.

Most of the corporate tax loopholes have been enacted to enable specific favored industries--or in some cases specific favored companies within an industry, which is worse--to compete with foreign companies who have significantly lower corporate rates. Additionally foreign companies have the protectionist advantage afforded by the GATT treatment of consumption taxes, something not available to US companies under current tax law and treaties.

Some--mostly on the left--have claimed that we shoud look at average rates, rather than marginal rates, in analyzing corporate taxes. Our average rates look competitive, but that's because of the loopholes. Remove the loopholes and we're no longer competitive. I strongly prefer lowering the rates to a competitive level and removing the loopholes, which are then no longer needed. Packaging the two together might be a reasonable approach.

S.A. Owl Wrote:First of all, as for the alleged four-point Democratic plan (WMD's post), I haven't seen evidence that these are in Obama's or the party's plans. (I'd grant you that telecom immunity may be imperiled.) I especially question the 25% military spending cut. Obama wants to increase force levels, for instance.

Terrible call on the run-down at third!

Actually, of the alleged four-point plan, I'm in favor of points 2 and 3. I also think we could cut military costs without sacrificing security if we focused on the things that I detailed on another thread (not going to rehash here to avoid distracting you too much), but I'm betting that cuts proposed by Obama, if any, won't end up looking like what I had in mind.

And I still agree on the run-down.

By the way, I'm doing a bit of channel-surfing, and so far Aslut is struggling with UCF.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:the second-highest corporate tax rates in the world

Who's #1?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:the second-highest corporate tax rates in the world

Who's #1?

Japan, by about 0.4%.
And their economy hasn't exactly been booming recently.