NY to... 147K? More About Barack Obama's Tax Plan
(Or: Time to make the donuts?)
[Ed. note: Yesterday's guest post about how Barack Obama's tax plan might affect Biglaw associates, authored by Ted Frank, generated a record number of comments on ATL: 564 (and counting). It also generated lots of reaction throughout the blogosphere (links collected below). So we thought we'd invite Ted to do a follow-up.]
Here it is. Ted wrote it in response to the following reader email, which makes many of the arguments that surfaced in the 564+ comments. From an Obama defender:
I'm sorry, but you are losing your credibility by posting this false propaganda on Obama. Look at Obama's website. It clearly states, "Asked About Raising the Cap, Obama said, 'You Might Have the Equivalent of a Doughnut Hole'--NOT That He Would Completely Remove the Cap." Obama "has stated in various venues that 'his inclination... has been for a 'donut' where the uncapping would take place above some threshold income level -- probably around $200,000 or $250,000' his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an email. A donut would protect a certain portion of income (e.g., between $100,000 and $200,000) from the payroll tax and could be phased in over decades."In addition, that "$34,000 paycut" in the post title is misleading. Even if all your assumptions were correct (which they weren't), the after tax pay cut under Obama is < $20,000. I love your site, but please correct this ridiculous false article before you lose all credibility.
And now, without further ado, Ted Frank.
* * * * * * * * * *
First, as I show in the spreadsheet, a $20,000 tax increase is the equivalent of a $34,000 before-tax paycut for a New York City resident, which would have the same after-tax effect. The $34,000 figure is accurate: that's just math. The Obama tax plan would have the same effect on a NYC fifth-year associate being paid market as a $34,000 paycut.
Obama has never said he will have a doughnut-hole, only that his SS tax could include a doughnut-hole. When Hillary Clinton attacked Obama at the November 15 Nevada debate for wanting to eliminate the cap, Obama didn't say that the attack was incorrect; he defended the policy because eliminating the cap would only affect what he called the "upper class." The press has accurately reported that Obama has also proposed eliminating the cap; even Obama's own website links to a thinktank's analysis of the benefits of a cap elimination.
It would be really easy for Obama to promise to include a "doughnut-hole" or to not eliminate the SS-tax cap. He certainly hasn't been afraid to promise drastically expensive programs of new spending or even tax giveaways to large swaths of the population who aren't paying much tax now.
But when it comes to Social Security, Obama is suddenly vague; when he does discuss details, it is to cite examples (e.g., Warren Buffett) that could not be accomplished without eliminating the cap entirely. And the only reason a politician acts that way is because he supports the more drastic, politically unpopular plan, but doesn't want to get tagged with it before the election, and will say after the election "I only said I would 'consider' a doughnut-hole."
How Barack Obama's Tax Plan Will Affect You [Microsoft Excel file]
Additional discussion and links, after the jump.
Frankly, Obama's plans to increase revenue don't work unless he either breaks existing promises or both eliminates the cap and raises taxes on top of that, so the idea that he would surrender the majority of the revenue increase by creating a $250,000 doughnut-hole -- when Congress has never provided a phased tax benefit to a single making $160,000, much less $240,000 -- is implausible.
Finally, even if there would be a $200,000 doughnut-hole, it doesn't change the marginal tax implications for the vast majority of BigLaw associates, who will still face marginal tax rates close to (and in NYC, CA, and DC, over) 50% and tax increases of five-digit magnitudes.
So, sorry, there's nothing false or propagandistic about it. Again, it's not politics, it is just math. There are certainly issues more important than money (as demonstrated by the fact that I work for a thinktank, at a fraction of the AGI I made the last full year I was in BigLaw), so money is only one dimension of one's voting decision, but Obama's policy proposals have dramatic financial consequences, and it is interesting to explore them.
A number of readers have asked for data for different years and states. I have constructed a more complex version of the spreadsheet that permits one to enter in different salaries, deductions, bonuses, income, and state tax data to determine your new marginal rates. This spreadsheet [Excel file; right-click to save] works for taxable incomes as low as $79,000. The spreadsheet includes an option: you can adjust the doughnut-hole assumption to see to what extent it affects you.
How Barack Obama's Tax Plan Will Affect You [Microsoft Excel file]
wherein i generate 400+ comments [Lagniappe: an unserious blog]
Fruits of an Obama Presidency [Instapundit]
For Our Well Compensated Readers [The Weekly Standard: The Blog]
Ye Gods, That's a Tax Hike! [The Campaign Spot / NRO Online]
Blog reactions to Obama, BigLaw, and Taxes [Technorati]
Earlier: Obama, BigLaw, and Taxes (Or: Obama = $34,000 Paycut)
(282) Comments
first...of many
Ted,
I once bought a shirt you designed. There was a monkey on it. I would like to buy another of those shirts. Is your SOHO store still open?
Cheers,
anyone who didn't realize this as part of obama's policy should lose their vote.
go barack!
shorter Frank:
nananananana I can't hear you when you say Obama has talked about a donut and I will continue living in my fantasy world ascribing positions to him that run counter to his own website & rhetoric nananananana
Teddy, stop amending the facts to fit your faulty numbers. Obama proposes a 250K doughnut hole. You even mention it in your post, and then in the very next sentence magically reduce it to 200K. I'm starting to think you are GWB (itching to cut taxes and horrible at math).
If you support Obama, why don't you just pay extra taxes now? You know you can voluntarily make contributions to the IRS, right?
Hillary is finished, Lat. Just give it up.
The Dems will not stop until they have all the best and brightest in this country firmly under heel and yoke of the "little man."
What I don't understand is how anyone who loves money like the readers and writers on this site do can be a democrat. Truthfully, I don't understand how anyone that has ever taken an economics class can still be a democrat, or worse a socialist like both of the Dem's candidates: BHO and HRD.
Here's my election slogan: Anyone but Obama -- Save my lifestyle!
BFD - Why not lower the cap so people making less can have a chance at taking home that extra 7% at some point in the year - even right around Christmas. We'll call it the Christmas Tax Refund and everyone will spend and stimulate the economy. Additionally, employers will have more money to say...I don't know...hire more workers. If SS were so good why not just let competition into the market place. You can either select a 401K account for that SS tax or give it to the government. Vote your pocketbook or the government will eventually make sure you don't have a pocketbook to vote.
What I don't understand is how anyone who loves money like the readers and writers on this site do can be a democrat. Truthfully, I don't understand how anyone that has ever taken an economics class can still be a democrat, or worse a socialist like both of the Dem's candidates: BHO and HRC.
Here's my election slogan: Anyone but Obama -- Save my lifestyle!
HOLY CRAP! TOO LATE TO CHANGE MY VOTE? JUST KIDDING. WITH MCCAIN, I'LL BE TOO BUSY (OR DEAD) FIGHTING WARS FOR MONEY TO MATTER VERY MUCH. AND HILLARY DOESN'T HAVE A PRAYER BEATING MCCAIN IN A GENERAL ELECTION.
GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO PRESSURE (READ: LOBBY) A PRESIDENT OBAMA TO EXPAND THAT DOUGHNUT HOLE.
MMMM. DOUHNUTS.
The mustachioed hayseed is out as top dog at CWT.
4:40 takes an early lead in the hyperbole contest! Can anyone beat him?!
Strike two for this website. I don't come here to read political advocacy -- and I doubt anyone else here does either.
HEY LAT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A "LEGAL TABLOID", NOT A FOX NEWS OUTLET!
This is ridiculous propaganda that does NOT belong on this site. We are in the midst of a large economic downturn and a slew of Big Law firms are laying associates off, yet you are posting drivel written by a clearly biased non-lawyer "Think Tank" employee on what Barak Obama MIGHT, in theory, do IF he were elected President?
Please, don't turn this site into another internet political blackhole.
"I don't come here to read political advocacy -- and *I doubt anyone else here does either*."
The 560+ comments generated by the previous thread, whether pro-Obama or con, all say one thing: you sir, are an idiot.
Federalist Society Troll
Under Obama's tax plan 90% of your hard-earned money will be given directly to unemployed, lazy poor people who will use it solely for drugs, lottery tickets and prostitution.
I don't understand why people are talking as if the President has any power to decide what the taxes should be. Congress decides that. President only has a weak power to veto things.
Who cares what he thinks about domestic issues? Presidents are pretty powerless and don't affect any aspects of the economy.
The only thing Presidents can do effectively is foreign affairs.
the funny thing about the best and brightest hundred thousandaire lawyer who is being oppressed by Bay-Rock is that his hundred millionaire hedge fund clients are backing obama.
I agree with 4:48. This Ted Frank nonsense sounds very dubious and is a poor fit for this stite. Much too substantive, and also incorrect from what I can tell by the various reader comments. And Frank's response shows his clear anti-Obama bias -- it's clear we can't trust his numbers.
Obama is the antichrist. Say no to tax hike Hussein!
so, no one is going to refute what he said or present a coherent counter argument? just a bunch of nonsense? This is getting to be a bit much....I thought the SNL skits and Hillary's whining were over the top. After reading the responses of commenters who support Barack on this blog and elsewhere, however, I am beginning to believe the delusional messianic cult charge thats being thrown at some Barack supporters.
Get it together, this is a legitimate critique of a potential policy proposal of an Obama administration. Your case is "this is necessary for x, y, and z" NOT "you war mongering republican douche bag! stop presenting lies and distortions!"
Frank's whole theory works in a vacuum where there are no outstanding circumstances (for example, a congress to check and adjust any flawed legislation). Think tanks should try working on ideas that might actually be applicable in the real world as opposed to creating these ludicrous hypotheticals.
Do you think pulling out of Iraq might save us some money, and thus allow this doughnut to work?
Hmmm....
The more I listen to BHO, the more I think even he is a bit uncertain as to whether he can be president. It seems even he is surprised by how far he has gone in the polls. I like BHO, and I do think he would make a good president - just not yet. I think HRC is the way to go for the Democratic primary.
LAT - STOP THIS CRAP. I COME HERE FOR LEGAL GOSSIP, NOT POLICY DEBATE.
YOU ARE A HACK.
4:56(1): No.
Well, John McCain might invade Russia. And how would that affect our taxes?
"Obama smirks at the idea that he will put your money where his mouth is."
This is still really stupid, and doesn't belong on this site. Further, this "new" post doesn't add anything or respond to any comments on the old post. It's just Ted Frank yelling like a child, "Does too, does too!"
Still doesn't take into account that President McCain will not have the power th enact tax legislation. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire, *automatically,* in 2010, and there's nothing McCain will be able to do about that. So get this: a vote for McCain is a vote for a $34,000 pay cut! Right Ted? It's just math!
Saying "the Obama tax plan" is intellectually dishonest and pathetically inflammatory. Let's get it straight: this is the Bush tax plan.
Isn't it ironic that we hung a Hussein to bring democracy to Iraq, and are willing to elect a Hussein to bring socialism to America?
It's true - McCain has never specifically denied that he would launch a nuclear strike on Russia. C'mon Think Tankers - get on this.
Basing two long blog posts on what someone didn't say = stupid.
Lottery Tickets to 190!!
5:01...McCain hasn't proposed ending the SS cap...so you your post is really stupid and dishonest
Lottery Tickets to 190!!
5:02: It's "hanged," not "hung." Pictures are hung; people are hanged.
Tax everyone to death, give all your money to the government so that bureaucrats can pad their pockets and the government will give money to the poor -- remind you of anything -- how about communism! Funny how this is also the way of the Democratic party.
Less tax, means more spending power for companies and individuals, means stronger economy. An all around win! TAX CUTS ALL THE WAY!
Tax everyone to death, give all your money to the government so that bureaucrats can pad their pockets and the government will give money to the poor -- remind you of anything -- how about communism! Funny how this is also the way of the Democratic party.
Less tax, means more spending power for companies and individuals, means stronger economy. An all around win! TAX CUTS ALL THE WAY!
Tax everyone to death, give all your money to the government so that bureaucrats can pad their pockets and the government will give money to the poor -- remind you of anything -- how about communism! Funny how this is also the way of the Democratic party.
Less tax, means more spending power for companies and individuals, means stronger economy. An all around win! TAX CUTS ALL THE WAY!
Tax everyone to death, give all your money to the government so that bureaucrats can pad their pockets and the government will give money to the poor -- remind you of anything -- how about communism! Funny how this is also the way of the Democratic party.
Less tax, means more spending power for companies and individuals, means stronger economy. An all around win! TAX CUTS ALL THE WAY!
5:04: Has Obama? His website says he would consider raising the cap, not ending it.
Jebus, more of this?? This guy is employed by a biased right-wing "think-tank," i.e. propaganda machine. He's a paid Republican shill. Lat, even if you agree with the politics, this blog is not a forum to advance that cause. Or, it hasn't been up til now. If that's changing you've lost a reader.
ANTICHRIST
HUSSEIN MULATTO
To everyone who says that us hard-working, high earners should be required to help those less fortunate (not born into wealth, not born into smarts, born into unfavorable circumstances), how would you feel about this:
The goverment requires all super-attractive hotties to sleep with people who couldn't normally get laid by super-attractive hotties during 51% of the hotties' sexual encounters. The hotties were either born into good looks or worked really hard to look good. They should help the less fortunate! Don't like this idea? Then hands off my fucking money.
so Obama has considered playing with the SS cap?
so Ted FRank's analysis isn't dishonest - only a guide to potential OBama policy effects?
well, whaddya know.
5:07 -- For the purpose of Mr. Frank's argument, raising v. eliminating the cap is a distinction without a difference.
This is complete idiocy. No associate reasonably expects to draw any benefits from SS in their lifetime. This relic from FDR's days should be eliminated, not expanded.
"Never help a black man asking for change." -- SNL
This crap should not be on the front page of any reputable news source. Of course, it's not. It's on the front page of ATL. Which I respected greatly for its accuracy up until about, oh, I don't know...yesterday?
So I take Frank's argument to be - (1) "He DEFINITELY said that he was going to eliminate the cap so even though his website clearly states that he has never proposed that, he's wrong. I worked at Irell & Manella so what the @#*$ does Harvard boy know?" (2) "A doughnut hole seems to be implausible because no one has ever proposed it before."
Great logic on #2. His reliance on the fact that there has never been a phased tax benefit for $160,000 or $240,000 earners is silly since without a doughnut hole, there is just a straight tax benefit to everyone who makes over $97.5K. So which is less plausible? Once you start tinkering with the payroll tax, why would you choose to give a straight tax benefit to all the wealthy as opposed to a phased in tax benefit?
Plus, there's been talk about a potential cut in the payroll tax rate to ease the burden on the middle class. This cut would apply equally to biglaw associates.
Moreover, there is no discussion about the fact that Hillary has called for an interest rate freeze for 5 years. There is absolutely no way to accomplish this without ending up with widespread inflation during this freeze period. Why don't you consider this in your analysis?
In summary, Lat...these last two posts have been garbage. I enjoy your site, but you're polishing the brass on the Titanic. Hillary's going down. And if you keep this up, your readership might be too.
5:10(1)
Best post in either of the two Obama/Frank threads!
Ohhh 5:05/5:06/5:07 has pulled neck and neck with 4:40 in the hyperbole contest! Things are really getting interesting now, folks!
Frank's post is SLIGHTLY more honest than the initial propaganda in that he at least explains why he thinks Obama will adopt a tax proposal that he has not officially proposed. But Frank's argument is based on reasoning that is slightly above retarded.
Frank asserts that "Obama's plans to increase revenue don't work unless he either breaks existing promises or both eliminates the cap and raises taxes on top of that." Why "wouldn't they work," and what criteria are using to determine whether they "work." You can say that his tax increase do not increase as much revenue as alternatives. But this is far different from what you are saying. Just because his plan wouldn't "work" in your view, does not compel the conclusion that he WILL, or is even LIKELY to, eliminate the cap.
Also - in the interests of not making this website a Republican, U Chicago, Easterbrook, mouthpiece, where is the analysis of what McCain's LIKELY, though unstated, social security and tax policies, will do to BigLaw Associates?
5:11, then why did the poster not say "raise" instead of "eliminate"? Does the fact that he misrepresented Obama's stance undermine his credibility?
It is easy to be "fair" and advocate "social justice" when it is done with other people's money. When did it become a crime to earn a living in the United States?
A lot of people on this blog would benefit from reading some of Hayek's books. I recommend you begin with "Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism."
Alternatively, look up www.cafehayek.com for insightful commentary.
5:04 I didn't mention the SS cap, so I don't know how the comment is dishonest. In any event, according to Frank;s own analysis, the effect of any SS withholding adjustment is a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of a (hypothetical, false) income tax increase.
Not saying there would be NO difference, just saying the potential difference is not honestly or accurately represented by the original post.
Frankly, I prefer tax and spend to don't tax and spend anyways. Perhaps that's because I don't like all the interest we're paying on the deficit.
But what the hell do I know, I'm a democrat.
Why is Barack Hussein Obama close butt-buddies with all of these terrorists like Rezko? He's going to run this country into the ground. Give me McCain!
News flash to all Dems: No way BHO can beat McCain. All you Dems need to start thinking outside your primary box and see the real threat. Polls show McCain will steamroll BHO, but not HRC.
All I'm saying is that what initially looked an economic analysis is really based on some JDs amateur political assessment of what Obama's statements really mean.
The Americas are turning into a dream team of socialism -- Lula, Chavez, Morales, Castro, and now Obama! Soon we'll need to move Lenin's body this side of the pond.
you associated the tax increase Frank put for obama with McCain which is dishonest.
if you want to be snarky...figure out what the numbers would be of letting the tax cuts expire instead of being lazy
Take this opportunity to visit https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute/ContributeB.aspx
5:28(1) is a McCain troll. Most polls show Sen. Obama having a better shot at beating Sen. McCain than Sen. Clinton.
Do you people even know what the word socialist means? Jesus, the stupid, it makes my head hurt.
Aside from say, Nader, there really aren't any candidates on the ballot who are left, let alone socialist.
And what, pray tell, crosses the magic socialist line? Police? Public schools? Public prosecutors? Public roads? Realize that all four examples I just gave weren't funded by the government "in 1789" as Justice Thomas would say.
it is me, or are people enamored with the obama phenomenon (e.g. the movement), rather than the candidate himself? he's not a good speaker... monotone, constantly says "um," though he does have a lovely deep voice. his call for "change" lacks any concrete meaning (e.g. HOW he will change whatever it is that needs changing).... right?
5:05(1)---Bravo. This is a neglected grammatical point.
5:34 -- Government has a LIMITED function. That function does not include the allocation of resources, the guarantee of a 'living wage' nor the 'redistribution of wealth.'
It's a joke that Generations X, Y, XX, YY, Z, and ZZ, or whatever, are contributing as much as we do to social security. It won't be around when we need it and right now most living off of it will withdraw far, far, far in excess of what they ever put in.
Frankly, I'm a lot more interested in my tax dollars going to protect what's left of the environment, or to better our dismal public schools. But putting my tax dollars to fund the retirement of someone who didn't save for it, is not disabled, and has several more good/healthy years of working is a joke.
My Dad will probably work until the day he dies. If I have $30K extra to contribute to someone's retirement, I want it going to him.
This is bullshit propaganda by the people who brought you the Iraq war (and the accompanying national debt and weak dollar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
Obama can suck on my chocolate salty balls. Just stick 'em in your mouth and suck 'em.
5:28 - actually polls show McCain will beat HRC, but McCain vs. Obama are a bit more tough to peg. This one shows him beating both:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/feb%2021-25%20bloomberg%20la%20times%20poll.pdf
Practically, though, polls this far out do not mean much. Obama, despite his recent celebrity, is barely a known quantity. Most people really haven't made a decision about him. HRC and to a lesser extent McCain, on the other hand, most voters know and have made a decision.
What's more important to look at are the favorable/unfavorable numbers. HRC is 51/42 favorable/unfavorable. Barack is 61/27, McCain is 61/26.
In general, favorables represent a ceiling. It is tough to get anyone who has an unfavorable opinion of a candidate to vote for that candidate. So for HRC, 42% have pretty much decided against her. Those numbers are 27% for Obama and 26% for McCain.
As the general election wears on, both McCain and Obama will turn off quite a few voters. The question will be who turns off more. One could argue that McCain will be stuck attached to Bush's policies, and thus turn off more. On the other hand, one could argue that McCain is well known as an independent, and thus will not turn off the electorate. Obama, on the other hand, is not well known, at least his policy positions are not known. Once America as a whole realizes he is the most liberal senator, will his negatives go up?
McCain vs. Obama will be a close election. McCain vs. Clinton will be a McCain victory, plain and simple.
Genius at 5:37,
And what are the limits of the Government's function? Don't the four examples I gave all arguably involve the allocation of resources (particularly education)? What if people could only prosecute by paying a prosecutor or doing so pro se? What if people had to travel on toll roads or pay protection money?
And who chose you to say what the function of our government would be?
We make thousands of laws and spend thousands of dollars protecting corporations from eachother. Our government, our tax dollars, pay for that. Without the rule of law and enforcement, there would not be room for people to profit. The rule of law costs a hell of a lot.
And BTW, having no middle class also costs a hell of a lot.
5:10, I'm afraid most lawyers would love your proposal, if only because it means they would get to date a super attractive hottie. Try again.
Barak Hussein Obama sucks.
Amen to what 5:44 said.
5:10, I'm afraid most lawyers would love your proposal, if only because it means they would get to date a super attractive hottie. Try again.
*AUDACIOUSLY HOPES TO FUND HEALTHY RETIREES' DECADE OF COUNTRY CLUB LIVING*
5:34 -- As much as I hate to be an idiot, I'll come down to your level briefly.
You're a fucking moron. I highly recommend you become better acquainted with economic and legal history and theory. You may begin your assignment by reading Hume.
Property rights are the foundation of justice. Without property there is no need for justice.
Ted Frank is still a hack. He still has not owned up to the dishonesty of his first post.
This is the great benefit of supporting a candidate who rarely ever makes concrete policy proposals. If someone points out a negative repercussion of a policy he has 'floated,' rather than respond substantively to the critique, his supporters can get indignant and assert that others are being untruthful about the candidate's positions.
I can see it now: its the general election and it becomes clear that troop withdrawal from Iraq would be disasterous -- "Barack never said that he was definitely going to withdraw troops; that was just one of many proposals he floated for dealing with Iraq..." (Whew, that was a close one!)
Everyone, if you want to know about the plans proposed by McCain, Obama and Hillary and the effect of those plans in the economy, read this article:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080225/campaign_budget_reality.html?.v=1&.pf=taxes
Good luck!
The analysis would be no different for highly paid airline pilots or hedge funders or computer programmers or other professionals with big law type salaries.
This is a political post masquerading (poorly) as a law-related post. You should give equal time, although my inclination is for ATL to get out of politics entirely.
Ted Frank and John McCain will viciously torture your children until they agree to serve as child soldiers in our 100 year occupation of Iraq. I haven’t heard them specifically deny that they will so it must be true.
Right, 5:50, because there is no such thing as a crime against the person. You sound like someone who drinks the law-and-economics koolaid.
So, are public schools out because they don't (directly) contribute to property right?
My point, you moron, is that protecting property rights is very expensive. And that it didn't used to be handled by the government. In the context of the definition of socialism.
To put the question in small words: what do people who are not socialists use taxes for? How does that differ from what socialists use taxes for?
And how about you try constructing an argument instead of engaging in ad homs and appeals to authority. Want to try for a trifecta of logical fallacies?
5:10(1) has a point; in fact, there's a stronger argument for redistribution of attractive sexual partners than there is for the redistribution of income.
After all, as a general rule, wealth is more frequently the result of labor and effort, rather than luck, than is beauty.
By the way, polls dont mean much. If you recall, Gore was winning by 10%+ points in 2000 and even though technically he won the election (popular vote at least), he did not win it by 10%+ points.
Ted Frank works for AEI - American Enterprise Institute. That's a conservative "think tank." From wikipedia "AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions."
I'm sure a post sponsored by AEI is "just math" and not influenced by policies or politics.
4:42
easy. You can love money but still hate the religious right to the point that you would rather pay to not have wacky laws that follow the belief that the government needs to stay out of our homes, unless they are enforcing my Christian values and stopping gays from ruining the earth, in which case the government needs to tell us how to live.
6:11 -- I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I am happy that McCain and not Huckabee won (presumptively) the GOP nomination. It allows me to vote my interest without having to fear the Christian right (which has absolutely nothing to do with the historical right).
I think this kind of post is totally inappropriate for ATL. I don't come here to read political garbage (and I think the piece is real trash and a smear)--I come here to read legal gossip, legal news, and legal garbage.
I don't want to hear anything about Lat's or any other contributor's political views, even if they are not inflammatory, tacky, and simplistic.
ATL needs to stick to what it knows; politics it does not know. There is no surer way to turn someone off to this site than to talk about politics or religion.
In highschool, college, and lawschool I used to make myself feel better about studing hard and skipping parties the weekend before exams with the consolation that I would make more money afterwards than those lazy asses who wasted away their education and opportunities b/c they were "too cool" to study hard and miss out on totally awesome social life.
And then I grew up and realized that that harder you work and the more money you make and the more successful you are because of it, the more the system reallocates your wealth to those very same "too cool" people who were too busy to work hard.
NY to Obama!! NY to Communism!!
I liked this site a lot better when it actually had legal gossip, not political trolling.
Ted, you might as well have said, "McCain hasn't said we will be Iraq for 1000 years. He said we could be. Clearly, you shouldn't vote McCain because 1000 years could happen and he's wishy-washy about that."
My God, I think this is the most retarded defense of a stupid argument I've ever seen.
Does anyone know the candidates' positions on pardons?
Or on stopping the government's unjustified interference with second amendment rights and sexual freedoms all in the name of reducing so-called "violent crime?"
anon 5:30, it's not dishonest at all to associate the tax increase Ted Frank mentioned with McCain. It's extremely dishonest for Frank NOT to associate it with McCain.
Listen, this is really simple: a Republican Congress enacted, and a Republican President signed into law, a bill which includes a tax hike in 2010. Right? And a Democratic Congress will not likely erase the hike by extending the tax cut's sunset provision. Right? So, given the above two premises, Frank's numbers are dishonest. He assumes that McCain will somehow eliminate Bush's 2010 tax hike, and it's just not true.
Frank does include analysis of what Obama mentioned as a possible policy to deal with SS, and McCain doesn't seem to talk about that possible policy, so it's okay to talk about it... as a hypothetical possibility.
Of course, Obama has also stated that he plans to lower taxes on middle-class workers, and Frank conveniently left this out of his analysis. (Of course, I wouldn't consider someone pulling in 5 grand per paycheck middle-class, so maybe it's inapposite for discussion on this website...)
Can we all just agree that anyone arguing for (a) Obama's "proposal" or (b) higher taxes in general is not allowed to comment on lack of bonus or lack of raises?
Anybody want to suggest what I should have for dinner? I'm thinking Thai.
Hundy
5:05: speak for yourself
most of you are children. "this guy's a shill"; "more from the republican attack machine."
*puts hands over eyes, holds nose and says: "barack wouldn't do this to us. his. leadership. ability. is. too. inspirational."*
Glad to see Lat is finally showing some journalistic integrity by giving equal time to both sides of an issue.
Oh wait, he didn't do that, did he? Instead, he invited this douchebag back to FURTHER spread his agenda-driven misinformation.
Wow.
Dude, this is a DAMN BLOG! It is not the NY Times! Chill out. Lat can publish whatever the hell he wants without regard for journalistic integrity. He does not hold himself out as a conduit of news! You are free to start your own Hussein-defending blog if you want to.
To all those who say that those of us concerned about this policy are just being greedy and we should be able to subsist on 20-35K or so less per year when we already make 100K+.... do you happen to forget that we are getting KILLED by law school tuition? I'll be out 180K by the time I'm done with it.
An important part of the long-term strategy on which I relied when planning my career and financial future was the knowledge that I would make approximately 115K after taxes living in a major market immediately out of law school. If that number is cut to 90K or 80K and I have to pay off my 180K in loans at the usurious rates I incurred when the economy was at its peak, then I will get boned.
This isn't a matter of greed but a matter of survival. I haven't busted my ass for the last ten years going to good schools, colleges and law schools and studying and working hard to end up no better than a mid-level bank manager.
If the tax rate in this country makes future prospective law (or business or medical) students like myself look at the #s and realize "you know what, it's not worth it to incur 180K in loans to go to law/business/medical school because i'm only going to be making 90k when I enter the work force anyway," it's pretty clear how negatively this will impact the acquisitive and entrepeneurial spirit that serves to quite directly move the US economy forward.
PS: please STFU about this not being appropriate on ATL. this is an incredibly important and salient topic and i'm grateful Lat has put it up here.
"Frankly, Obama's plans to increase revenue don't work unless he either breaks existing promises or both eliminates the cap and raises taxes on top of that"
So we're ignoring the possibility that he's not going to spend trillions on an unwinnable war/occupation? Or that he might try to find a way to force oil companies to pay higher taxes without raising prices? Or that he might do any one of 10,000 other things that would reduce spending in some areas so he can fund his plans?
I hope Ted's employer sees this "analysis" and fires him promptly, though if he works for a right-wing (or liberal) think tank, this is precisely the kind of drivel they spew.
Find a dumber audience, Ted -- lying with statistics doesn't work when your audience has a college education.
I apparently missed the part where Obama got the Democratic nomination.
(In other words, where is the Hillary column? This isn't yet an Obama/McCain showdown, so her numbers should be on the chart, too.)
Please, please, please don't tax me anymore. I won't be able to afford the mortgage on my 700 square foot sweatbox in my glorious 8 story pre-war (more like post-nuclear war) building, which, oh, by the way, is reassessed at a higher value by the city each year, thereby increasing my property taxes - which I don't believe are deductible under the AMT...
I agree, 6:43, it's relevant and it persuaded me to not vote for a Dem in the general election.
6:18 = failure
you should have managed hedge fund money. besides, who had to study to make it into biglaw? this was one long coast in. so you must be a retarded failure.
If you think Obama is really going to use a doughnut-hole (though he has refused to promise one, and a doughnut-hole would make it impossible for him to keep other promises he has made), then the new spreadsheet permits you to change the assumptions, and see what happens to your paycheck and marginal tax rate with a doughnut-hole. So how am I "lying with statistics" when the spreadsheet includes both options? See for yourself: the doughnut-hole doesn't help mid-level associates that much.
5:18, the spreadsheet includes tax consequences of McCain's keeping his promises -- and he has promised to refuse to raise taxes.
Again, this isn't politics. It's math. It's a spreadsheet reflecting Obama's various proposals to raise taxes, and the consequences thereof. My agenda is to figure out my budget for 2009, and how much the Obama tax increases are going to cost me and my BigLaw girlfriend. (Me, not that much, though enough that I'll have to cut back on my spending, which I'm sure will be good for the economy. Her, quite a bit.)
6:08, my Wikipedia page contains many errors, so I wouldn't trust Wikipedia very much.
Agree, 6:43. But be forewarned: You're going to get blasted (like I was yesterday) for being greedy or deciding to go to a top tier school instead of a T2 school on scholarship. Apparently, if you don't have the cold hard cash to pay for an Ivy education, you don't deserve to go, no matter what other achievements you may have garnered.
From my perspective -- that of someone who took lots of student loans out to pay for her education -- a biglaw salary isn't a means to a luxurious life. It's a way to pay off the deep six figure debt from my education. I thought the Dems were all about self betterment via education, but they're not acting like it with these proposals. A tax hike (whether in the form of raising, eliminating, or donut-holing the SS cap) will strangle my finances and make paying off my student loan debt even more difficult. And let's be frank: Staying in the pyramid Biglaw is not an option for the vast majority of associates. As it was, I'm scheduled to pay off my loans around the time most exit the firm; a $30K decrease in my takehome will leave me years behind.
A $30K increase in taxes for someone who is paying uncapped variable usurious interest rates on extremely high private loans -- which she doesn't get to deduct -- is hardly an incentive to the non-moneyed members of society to better themselves through education.
Mmm... Donuts...
Hey Lat,
How about a post on the McCain platform -- endless war and government by the oil lobby.
Maybe throw in something about Scalia pre-judging the matters before him and rigging elections.
You are greedy. I know plenty of people from T1 schools paying off six-figure debt while working at $60-$80k government jobs and living in large, expensive cities. And having families. You don't need six figures to pay your loans down on time. You just don't. The two years I averaged $60k, I managed to knock $10k off the principal. If you choose to have that lifestyle, fine, but quit crying poor.
7:05 - BRAVO! I could not have said it better myself.
The demoncrats are myopic in all their policies. They never think beyond the current election. We need equality of opportunity in this country, not equality of results. The ability to climb up the social ladder has been one of the characteristics that set America apart from the rest of the world since its founding. Now the demoncrats want to take the ladder away and guarantee (and require) social mediocrity.