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.

Here comes Jimmy Carter America. Don't say no one warned you.

Who cares about social security? I'm voting for grandpa McCain, who's social security plan is far stealthier. 100 years into this war, there will be fewer americans who even reach the age of retirement!

730 -- It is a lot easier to reduce defense spending in the long run than to reduce or eliminate entitlement programs.

Mr. Obama has you Republicans this worried already, huh?

This is borderline disgusting David. Regis expects more from you. Perhaps you were confused as to our high school motto? If so, let me clarify it for you; it was "men for others", not "every man for himself".

But seriously, lets look at how this works.

Step 1: Lat allows employee of right-wing think tank publish anti-obama rubbish on his web site.

Step 2: Right wing magazines like National Review write articles about Obama's tax hikes and cite "Above the Law" as the source.

Neat trick huh? Kind of like money laundering.

But 7:05, I don't want to wait 30 years to pay off my loans. In what world is paying double-digit (or high single digit) private loan interest over a 30-year period a good thing? (Except maybe for the banks.)

Given my age -- and the age I went to law school -- a 30 year payoff schedule puts me near retirement. So no, I'm not greedy to take a BigLaw job to pay them off in ~5 years. And after those ~5 years are over, maybe then I can start saving a bit more for retirement, or for a downpayment on a small home, switch to public service/government work (i.e., the reason I went to law school), or start saving for my kids' education. Having a BigLaw job for a limited period of time does not make your average law school grad rich. Nor does it make us greedy.

7:32,

Let it balm your soul: I am scared shitless of an Obama presidency. The man refuses to campaign on any principle in particular, but when he speaks something resembling substance, it reminds me of my Soviet childhood. I don't want Obama to take money away from my family and give it to some other family that isn't mine. So yeah, I'm worried.

7:05 -

A biglaw salary, even with the tax increase, is enough to pay off your loans within several years. If you are "years behind" due to the increased tax it is because of your own poor spending habits. Here's an idea - don't run up your credit card bill with Ugg boots and tanning salon charges until AFTER you've paid off your loans.

It is disgusting to hear someone who will be taking home over 100k per year with no relevant job experience complain about taxes. If you were a middle class worker forced to cut necessities from your budget you'd be sympathetic. But instead you're complaining because you'll only be able to eat sushi or steak 6 nights a week instead of 7. Cry me a damn river and get a grip while you're at it.

I'm voting McCain. I saw the Nov 15 debate where Obama said he wanted to remove the payroll tax cap because people making over 96k are "rich" and can afford it. Hillary attacked him for it.

Obama would do it too. He's CAMPAIGNING on it, for crying out loud, even though he knows it'll hurt him with some people. He's obviously committed to it. He's a smooth talker and people mysteriously idolize him. He'd get anything he wanted from our democratic Congress.

I cannot believe anyone in biglaw supports Obama.

7:05: part of it is that most of us went into law school (or business or med school) expecting to have a certain salary upon graduation. if it makes us 'greedy' to blanch at having this expectation reduced by about 25% then i don't know what to tell you.

but just as big a part of it is what i said towards the end of my post at 6:43: if people are going to be taxed at such exorbitant rates, where is the incentive for someone to work hard and study and strive and better himself? it's simple economics.

now if BO were to implement some sort of much-needed check on law school/business school/medical school tuition rates, then maybe his proposal would make more sense. but as it stands, it will be a huge disincentive for the best and the brightest in america to grow educated and skilled and enter elite professions if they are forced to incur close to 200K in debt in order to make 80-90k per year when they begin working. do yourself a favor and wiki the laffer curve.

my mistake... the above post at 7:35 was directed toward 7:31, not 7:05.

7:36 -

If you failed to grasp the context of what I was saying, you have much bigger things to worry about. The fact that the Republican machine is already working this hard against Obama is amusing.

Reality Jones -- Why don't you tell the middle class bozos that they shouldn't buy a $700K home on a $40K salary instead of bailing them out with my money?

"If you choose to have that lifestyle"

We bust our asses for that lifestyle. How many of us will be here at work past 10? Past 12? Past 2? And how many days a month do you have to do that?

Shut the fuck up about our "whining": we've chosen to work ourselves silly, and should be paid for it. How about those people who chose to live balanced lives, work 40-50 hours a week, and make 50-60k a year have to pay another 10k each year on the non-monetary gain they realize from satisfaction from their chosen investment of their time?

$34 grand to end this nightmare of Republican rule?

Worth every friggin' penny.

To Reality Jones

When you're paying 40-50% of your earnings in taxes, it's WAY too much. It doesn't matter how much you make. The government should be able to run itself without putting such large burdens on its people.

People like you are JEALOUS of people with high incomes, and you just want to stick it to them. You didn't do a good job of disguising this malice in your post.

7:21, what's greedier? Wanting to keep the money you earn, or wanting other people to earn your money?

The point to take away from 7:05's post was that income is not a good proxy for "wealth." A man who owns even a modest home and makes 50K/year has more wealth than I do with no home, 170K/year + bonus, and student loans to repay. (actually, I've never taken a loan out in my life, but I hear most law students do)

If Barack Hussein is elected, I want a cushy government job at one of the forgotten agencies.... Maybe FERC, the FEC, or even the OPM. I can come in at 11AM, leave by 3PM and take a 2 hour break in between, take every other Friday off and get 12 days of leave plus 10 holidays per year. With my experience, I'd probably land a GS15 position, milk the system for $100k+ per year (plus benefits) and add absolutely NO VALUE to the US economy. This is the culture of entitlement. And if the masses elect to have it, I will milk it.

To 7:40

It's not like any of this is incorrect. I watched the Nov 15 debate and heard Obama defend his plan to remove the payroll tax cap. You can find it on youtube.

The people have a right to know what they're voting for before they cast their ballots. Thank you Lat for posting this.

7:45 has it right: forget in-house, NYC BIGLAW to USA'S TEAT!

As a public interest attorney, all I have to say about this is the following: thanks for the LRAP suckers!

I thought this was a good post that came late on the other thread:

"I have 150K debt, NYC cost of living, but because I have a biglaw check, I'm suddenly rich.

Oh, and this job is not at all secure.

What a joke.

To all of you commenting on how rich we are, YOU send in extra money if you want.

I feel like I'm struggling to just build some kind of financial security and pay off my loans before biglaw is done with me."

And yes, I am a Dem. And I plan to vote Democratic. But I'm hoping (perhaps stupidly) that I'm not shooting myself in the foot (or face) for doing so.

7:43 -

Nice guess, but wrong. I'm at a top law school with and will work biglaw when I graduate. So no, I'm not JEALOUS, there's no reason to be JEALOUS when I'll be making the same salary shortly.

And if you don't want to pay 40-50% the first thing you should do is move out of NYC - the taxes and COL there are much worse than any tax hike could ever be.

7:46 -

1) That's non-responsive.

2) I agree that people have the right to know what they are voting for. That's not the issue. The issue is that this source is a political hitman and his 'study' really does not belong on ATL.

1. This guy works for the fucking American Enterprise Institute -- that's Neocon central, and about the most biased "think tank" there is. It's quite possibly even worse than the Cato "Institute." This guy is a neocon hack and his screed does not belong on this website. Unsubscribe.

2. As shocking as it is to neocons (known as "neoliberals" everywhere else in the world), not all of us vote based purely on self interest. But Milton Friedman and his minions did a great job of stating this to the point it became gospel (not surprisingly, Mr. Frank was also a Chicago grad).

3. There are plenty of good arguments that it's in your (slightly, but only slightly, long-term) self-interest to support higher payroll taxes and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for yourself if you're in the top 10% of earners, as all of us biglaw lawyers are. Unless the U.S. gets a bigger revenue stream through taxes or through ending the $11 BILLION A MONTH boondoggle in Iraq (neither of which McCain intends to do), the U.S. will continue to accumulate debt, inflation will run rampant, and the dollar will eventually crash completely. I don't know how one can argue that the Bush tax cuts are anything but an unmitigated failure and that the current course has not already been destructive (want to buy a canadian dollar, anyone?), but is also completely unsustainable.

4. If your spouse makes any money at all you will be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax anyway, even with the "closing of the loophole." That's because the "loophole" people were worried about was the one that was pulling in middle class people -- not the rules that pull in folks who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, like us.

7:37 - But I'm not GOING to be a middle class worker. I'm smart, I spent 7 years studying my butt off in higher education, and I work just as hard now in a challenging, stressful, fast-paced career. If I wanted to be a middle-class worker, I wouldn't have done any of that. But I did because it was worth it in order to make more money than I need. The middle class workers can live with the consequences of their actions, and I'll live with the consequences of mine.

P.S., I donate a significant amount to worthy causes, but that's my choice, not an obligation.

Whatever losers. Tax yourselves to death and keep whining about "market bonuses" and docking incremental pay for not entering time quickly. "Oh, but Obama inspires me" you say. Shut up. Hope isn't worth shit, because all you'll end up hoping for is more money, which you would have had, had you not voted for Obama in the first place.

Reality Jones at 7:37, you're out of line. I'm not living beyond my means, except perhaps for rent in a high COL city (but at $1,500/month, I'm still paying a lot less than most I know). I won't go into the specifics, but I don't own a car, pack my lunch most days, limit my going out. I took a high paying job and am living frugally so I can pay off my debt. That's called fiscal responsibility.

I'm "behind" as you say because I went to law school a bit later and didn't work high paying jobs until now. Most associates know that their shelf life at the law firm is ~3-5 years. I'd like to put away most of my student loan debt in that time so that I can then focus on providing for my family, or saving for a home, or helping to pay for my kids' schooling. And, as I mentioned in my 7:35 post (mistakenly directed at myself instead of at 7:21), a 30-year pay off with the usurious interest rates charged by private lenders would have me paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Sallie Mae. That's good news for them, but not for me or my family.

While my gross may be in the six figures, my net of federal, state, and local taxes is ~55% of my takehome. I know I'm lucky to earn it, but it doesn't put me in the lap of luxury. I'm just trying to be responsible, pay off my debt, save up for a home (not a second home or vacation home, mind you), and care for a family. Since when is that greedy?

Because people who are public defenders and have 100+ cases don't work hard? Not everyone who is earning $40-$80k has good quality of life. And speaking as someone who has earned that little, and still managed to pay of more of my loans than a lot of the whiners on this board, yes you are greedy. Do you realize that a large fraction of your profession has debts as large as yours and nowhere near the earning potential? And no, this is not sour grapes, I'm doing my time at biglaw to pay off my loans, but not because I have to, not because my six-figure debt will crush me without a six-figure salary, but so I can kick my loans quickly. And guess what--I am not poor. Neither are you. You have no idea what poor is.

To 7:44--I wish my tax dollars were spent better than they were, but I do believe in progressive taxation. Because I am worried about the vanishing middle class. Even though I am in a position to become actually rich, I do not want to see the middle class vanish. If there is a better way to deal with that than progressive taxes, I am all ears. But I am very worried about increasing poverty.

Re: 7:50--Not everyone gets LRAP. At one T100 school I knew, you had to make no more than $40k to get LRAP.

Um, Reality Jones? The difference between Obama's tax and the NYC COL is that they CHOSE to spend more money to live in NYC. They DON'T choose to have their money taken for idotic programs that appeal to poors.

Hey - reality Jones - shut up about all of this until you are actually earning a paycheck. Seriously, cram it. It's really easy to get sanctimonious about how much money you do or don't need when you're living a student life with no loan payments, student health insurance, and none of the costs of working tugging at your pockets. And it's easy to claim you don't care about a theoretical increase on your theoretical dollars. But let's hear back from you when you're in the real world, instead of shouting inanities from the cheap seats. Get your own grip, kiddo.

7:55: If Frank is wrong because he went to Chicago (gasp!), what are we to think of Obama, who was teaching at Chicago when Frank went there?

Did you even read Frank's post? He explicitly says money is not the only issue.

8:02 - you are not greedy but how is the thirty year payment term relevant? Even with a tax increase you will still be able to pay off your loans in five years at most. In no way is this tax increase having a significant impact on your loan payback.

An annual take home difference of $19k doesn't have a significant impact on someone's loan payback? Hominuh?

http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.,scholarID.101/scholar.asp
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

Above is the link to Ted Fank's bio and below is the text. Above I have also included a link to SourceWatch's description of AEI.

In case there is someone reading the blog who doesn't know, the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative group--they generally don't like democrats. Same with the Federalist Society.

Ted Frank

Resident Fellow and Director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest
Resident Fellow Ted Frank

As director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest, Frank manages the Institute's research in and studies liability reform. His research areas include products liability (including pharmaceuticals and asbestos), class actions and civil procedure, corporate regulation, antitrust and patent litigation, lifestyle litigation, medical malpractice, and judicial selection. Before joining AEI in 2005, Frank was a litigator in private practice; his litigation experience includes defending the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election against an ACLU constitutional challenge, Vioxx and automobile products liability cases, class action defense, and antitrust and patent cases. Frank has also argued successfully in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals multiple times and sits on the Federalist Society’s Litigation Practice Group Executive Committee.

8:11, you're a genius. You also could have clicked on the link to Ted Frank's name in the original post to get to the exact same page.

Now explain where Frank's spreadsheet showing that I take a big tax hike under either of Obama's plans is wrong.

8:11 - Frank's background is irrelevant....it's all about the math

You will pay higher taxes with a President Obama

It does make you greedy if you're crying about paying extra taxes. Our lifetime earning potential is incredibly high. Sure, we have all those loans to pay off at first, but speaking as someone who is paying them off (and who has paid them off while working a low-paying job), crying poor me and bitching about tax increases is greedy.

You don't like some governmental policies? You want us to get to a place where it would be fiscally responsible for us to lower taxes? Fine, agitate for that.

This is the first war we have fought where the people back home haven't suffered through shortages or tax increases. We are mortgaging our country. So if it takes higher taxes to get closer to a balanced budget, I am all for that. Of course I would prefer decreased spending, decreased pork, etc., so I look for that in a politician as well.

I was referencing the 30-year payoff because someone else told me that I would be able to pay off my loans "on time" without worry. The "on time" is 30-years.

And yes, right now I am scheduled to put away all of this debt in ~3 years (without saving anything) or ~5 years (putting some additional aside for retirement or a downpayment). But if my takehome is $30K less each year? It's going to take several more years, thus putting me "behind" my original schedule. (Which means that I have to put off public interest longer -- that is, if my BigLaw firm keeps me around.)

And, just to clarify, I am a Democrat. I'm not hawking McCain. I'm just deeply concerned that the wage earners -- even those who, like me have no accumulated wealth and have a negative net worth -- are going to be screwed over by our own party. Maybe I'd be ok with it if it were for the environment or our schools. But to bail out a social security program that won't be around when I retire? I don't think so.

Waaaahhh!!!! WahhhH!!! It's my money, you guys can't have it!! Waaaahhh!

When is the last time a Biglaw associate:
1.) Was homeless?
2.) Went hungry because he or she could not afford food?
3.) Could not afford to see a doctor?

How many Americans would love to have a job where they would be assured of always having the resources necessary to provide shelter, food and medical care for themselves and their family?

7:41 was right. You have no idea what poor is.

When is the last time a Biglaw associate:
1.) Was homeless?
2.) Went hungry because he or she could not afford food?
3.) Could not afford to see a doctor?

How many Americans would love to have a job where they would be assured of always having the resources necessary to provide shelter, food and medical care for themselves and their family?

7:41 was right. You have no idea what poor is.

How, how, how is it greedy to want to keep the money I earn?

8:17 - the war budget is minuscule compared to the entitlement programs budget.

Why not balance the budget by making cuts there?

8:14,
It might be right, it might be wrong. I don't know. The point, which you are too stupid to realize, is that this is propaganda. Anyone can choose statistics to make a plan look bad. How about a 1.2 trillion dollar tax rebate? I guess the War in Iraq blew that one...shucks

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?ei=5090

Depending on what entitlements you are talking about, I may be with you there as well.

The war budget is big enough that there should have been tax increases to fund it. Or spending cuts. I'll give you spending cuts. That is being fiscally responsible. Unless you think that was a pile of "extra money" sitting about when we started the war.

8:19-

You, you, you are part of a larger society that supposedly cares about others.

I know, sucks right? Damn poor, elderly, young and disabled!

Of course not everyone gets LRAP. Lower ranked schools don't have much trouble convicing people to stay out of biglaw.

8:20 - you stupid fuck....is there any doubt that your taxes will go up under President Obama?

NO - end of debate

You can argue about how much they will go up.....but they will go up

All of the money you earn? No taxes?

(I know, I'm being a smartass, but what we should be focused on is making policy changes to make it fiscally responsible to have tax cuts, not giving out tax cuts like candy when we've upped war spending.)

If you want to feel good about helping other people, please do it with your own money. Private charity is a beautiful thing. It requires people to actually put THEIR OWN MONEY where THEIR MOUTH IS.

Where is Ted Frank's spreadsheet on how much of a "pay cut" we take as a result of the McCain policy of "incurring foreign debt to pay for an absurdly expensive voluntary war, since I'm not willing to get rid of irresponsible tax cuts for the rich." The U.S. dollar is tanking, and its the fault of these policies. Guess what? Your inflation-adjusted $160k under McCain is a lot less than $160k was a year ago, and it will only continue to lose its value. Mr. Frank, you've said yourself that this isn't politics. So please put together that McCain spreadsheet for us. I'm very interested in seeing it.

826--Taxes will go up, yes. That does not mean that you will be worse off economically under Obama than someone else. if you fail to see that other factors play a larger role than you should drop out of law school now
(I'm assuming from your post you couldn't possibly have graduated and found a job)

8:20 -- I agree wholeheartedly! But, in the long run, cutting the defense budget is exponentially easier than cutting entitlement programs. Social security has existed since the '30s! We are still dealing with this shit.

8:18 - If this tax estimate is a) numerically correct, b) manages to pass through Congress in this identical form and c) law firms do not raise salaries at any point in 2008 then the most your pay will fall is 19k. Under this scenario it will probably take a bit longer to pay off your loans but you can still do it in five years.

HOWEVER, at some point in the next couple of years salaries WILL go up and when they do that will offset this tax hike and your loan payback situation will be back on track.

8:25 - here's the problem I have with arguments like yours. For you, paying taxes into a hopelessly inefficient, poorly-run, ineffective entitlement system means that we care about others. Did it ever occur to you that focusing on the worst possible way to get help for those who need it isn't exactly a hook on which to proudly and self-righteously hang your hat? Higher taxes have a directly negative effect on charitable giving. But it's better to let the government waste our money as it cares en masse for our elderly, young, and disabled than to further privatize social services so that they have a prayer of being effectively and efficiently run, right?

Get over yourself. Just for a moment, contemplate the idea that someone can effectively and generously help care for others by choosing to allocate the money they earn to the organizations and causes they choose. Then you can go back to your knee-jerk hatred of sensible economic policies.

To 8:18

Are you kidding me? I grew up poor as f*ck. I come from a very large family and we spent years living below what's considered the poverty line for a much smaller family. I worked my ass off in school because I wanted control over my life. I didn't want to have to worry about not having enough food, or getting evicted. Now I'm headed to biglaw and it seems like I can finally build a nice life for myself. It's infuriating that the government is going to be taking so much money from me. I work hard to pull myself up out of the mess I was born into, and the government punishes me for it. The gov simply does not need 40-50% of my income to run itself. Get this through your head, the gov WASTES MONEY, lots of it. The solution is to cut out the waste, not to place an ever increasing burden on societies hardest working people.

Christ, if Obama wants to punish the rich, at least draw the line higher, like somewhere around $1M a year in income.

I know I'm very, very lucky. And I'm not saying I'm poor.

All I'm pointing out is that I'm not rich. For 3 to 5 years, I will have a very high salary. Odds are that for the rest of my working years, I will be making much, much less. The average salary for an attorney is what, $60K/year?

The numbers reflected on my 2007 W2 may be high, but I'm not wealthy (and in fact, I'm just gunning for a positive net worth). As one friend happily pointed out, I'd be better off financially if I made $40K/year but had no debt. Many of my doctor friends feel the same way.

Where does this leave me? I dunno. There's no doubt that we have some tough choices ahead. I'll pay some more in taxes to clean up the environment, better our schools, and yes, help others in need. But I'd like to see the retirement age increased (if the baby boomers want 20 years of retirement, they can do it on their own dime, not withdraw in deep excess of what they've contributed to the system), frivolous spending eliminated, and some semblance of fiscal responsibility when it comes to the administration of our government (it's all too easy to waste other people's money).

Some of us, myself included, know *exactly* what poor--and I mean not able to pay for all the basics, living in Red Cross donated "mobile housing" for years, working to help feed the family while in high school and college poor--is.

And we really, really didn't like it.

Hence our job choice, and our near-homicidal umbrage at the sanctimony of someone--who's never had to work or live like we have had to--letting "Waaaahhh!!!! WahhhH!!! It's *my* money, you guys can't have it!! Waaaahhh!" drip sarcastically out of their mouth.

You want to take what's ours because you think it's a better for "the poor"? Don't say that to us in a dark alley, friend. Stick to message boards.

Some of us, myself included, know *exactly* what poor--and I mean not able to pay for all the basics, living in Red Cross donated "mobile housing" for years, working to help feed the family while in high school and college poor--is.

And we really, really didn't like it.

Hence our job choice, and our near-homicidal umbrage at the sanctimony of someone--who's never had to work or live like we have had to--letting "Waaaahhh!!!! WahhhH!!! It's *my* money, you guys can't have it!! Waaaahhh!" drip sarcastically out of their mouth.

You want to take what's ours because you think it's better for "the poor"? Don't say that to us in a dark alley, friend. Stick to message boards.

8:27 - Any semi-intelligent person knows that collective action problems render your suggestion useless when it comes to sustaining any meaningful government program.

Ohhh...be careful 8:31. People are going to get very crabby if you assert that people who make a lot of money are the hardest working people. Didn't you know that the poor are automatically the hardest working people? That's the party line around here, anyway.

8:24 - my biggest problem with democrats is taxes....I would vote democrat but for taxes.

Their answer to any budget shortfall (and frankly to many other perceived problems) is to raise taxes. They complain that "the rich" are not paying their fair share...and then proceed to define rich as those making over $102,000 per year. I'm sorry, but between federal, state, and local taxes, plus all of the excise taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, etc. I am paying way more than my "fair share." The taxes I pay are enough "sacrifice" that could be going towards my kids' college.

When they ask people to sacrifice, why is it never these people on TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, the people with housing vouchers? Shouldn't they have to share in the "sacrifice" too?

7:41, your "hence our job choice" incentives argument is completely belied by the fact that when you supposedly set out on your goal of working yourself out of poverty via BigLaw, the Bush tax cuts weren't yet in place. And yet--shockingly!--you nonetheless thought it would be worthwhile to pursue the course you did. You weren't disincentivized from doing so. So shut the fuck up and stop whining like a little bitch.

8:31 - yipee... my cut is "only" $19,000....sign me up for Obama

8:27 - Wait, you did it!?! You finally perfected that time machine!?! You can bring us back to 2003 and prevent an "absurdly expensive voluntary war"??!

Great. I'm voting for you.

Otherwise, I'm inviting for the one candidate who realizes that it's 2008, not 2003, and we're stuck with our absurdly expensive war, like it or not, and withdrawing our troops will turn it into more of a fucking mess than it already is, allowing Iran or al Qaeda to take over, and creating an infinitly more absurdly expensive problem than we already have.

And yeah, McCain's right, we should be there for 100 years. I miss the good old days when countries just took over countries they defeat at war, including their resources. Iraq has a ton of oil, and I don't think it's wrong to say we need it more than they do.

But seriously, does anyone know where I can find Ted Frank's spreadsheet on the McCain "BigLaw Pay Cut"? I can't find it anywhere here or on the AEI website.

If anyone ever doubted that biglaw lawyers were "in it for the money" these threads clearly end that debate.

8:42 - damn right....why else would I put up with all this shit

8:42 - I work more than 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Are you seriously going to say with a straight face that I shouldn't be compensated well for putting so much of my life into work for my clients? And that I'm out of line for resenting a proposal to take even more of the money that I earn and give it to others? Because that's crazy.

You're right, 8:40, if we don't stay in Iraq forever, Iran and Al Qaeda will "take over" the world. On that same logic, we also obviously need to immediately invade Pakistan, Somalia, and a host of other countries with weak governments and lots of terrorist infrastructure. Don't worry, we can sell T-notes to the Chinese to pay for it while giving ourselves tax cuts.

I don't know, why not do something worthwhile with your life instead of squander what's left of your youth in an 8x10 office for 70 hours per week?

To 838

Please explain to me why I should hand more money over to a government that wastes it.

Also, the Bush tax cuts didn't exist, but Obama hadn't removed the payroll tax cap either.

Don't tell me what to be pissed about. If you think the government deserves more money, please, write them a check. I know the more they get the more they waste.

Also, Rasmussen, for the first time in a long time, has McCain beating Obama by 4%. So yah, keep turning voters off of Obama. Even if you were "right" about the tax hikes, which you aren't, all your pushing the tax hikes is going to do is cost Obama the election. Nobody likes a tax hike. There are people making way less than 102K who'd oppose it just because they expect to make that one day.

Simple solution, make payments to student loans, principal AND interest, tax deductible. You pay off your education with pre-tax dollars. Anyone have a problem with that?

Because, 8:46, the average law student is deep in student loan debt. Current tuition prices for law school is $40K/year. And that doesn't include books, rent, food, and the like.

Medical school and law school are not the way to go to build wealth. And yet we're sure taxed like we're filthy rich.

8:42, where the fuck do you work? Maybe you should get a job at just about any other firm, where you don't have to work 72 hours a week (including every Saturday), and you get paid the exact same amount. If you want to be as well compensated as possible, there are thousands of law jobs that pay a much better hourly rate than you're getting (unless you happen to work at Wachtell, in which case you shouldn't be complaining about a reversal of tax cuts anyway).

Ok, signing off for now. Looks like all that's left are three or four red-blooded libertarians and its getting a little wingy in here for my taste. Toodles, my soon to be 34k poorer friends!

8:45 - No, not the world, Iraq. You're ok with al Qaeda having a safe haven in Iraq, right in the middle of the Arab world, adjacent to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria? You really think we should pull out immediately if that's the situation?

Hell, even Barry O admits that he'd go right back into Iraq if al Qaeda set up shop there. Of course, Barry is too busy practicing his eloquent speeches in the mirror to have paid attention to the news in the past four years and see what things are like in Iraq.

Love the "let's help others" argument. Such generosity with other people's money.

Here's an idea - help others with charity or local government (which has more accountability). Can't see that the feds provide much bang for the buck.

I hear you get a pretty good bang for your buck in endless middle-eastern wars. Lets start one of those and put those taxes use!

8:54 -- Nah, even W realized that starting endless wars is pretty stupid, and hasn't done it since 2003. Fool him once, shame on you, fool him -- he can't be fooled again.

The problem is that the war he started in 2003 can't be undone. Withdrawing won't magically make Saddam home back from the dead and regain control of his country and stop all the violence and remove al Qaeda. Instead, it will create a vacuum.

So, yeah, unfortunately, staying in Iraq is the most sensible solution. We're that fucked.

8:40, the point is that al qaeda has bigger safe havens already in other countries (e.g., pakistan). on your logic, we need to immediately invade those countries and stay in them basically forever. At that point, your $200k will be worth all of $50,000 in the world economy. Great idea!

"I don't know, why not do something worthwhile with your life instead of squander what's left of your youth in an 8x10 office for 70 hours per week?"

Anyone here want to seriously contend that the U.S. Govt. should punish me, financially speaking, for choosing what to do with my youth?

Obama is going to f*ck your tax doughnut with his prime Alabama black snake.

Too beaucoup! Too Beaucoup!

8:57(1), sorry to see you've been completely taken in by the Bush/McCain fear mongering. Let me guess--we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, right? I call BS. We're much better off pulling out now. There are shitloads of qaeda people in Iraq and elsewhere who are no less able to mount an attack than they would be without our invading presence. Any increased danger will be negligible and more than worth it for the resource boon.

8:57 - Yeah, Pakistan and Iraq are the same.

Except Pakistan has a central, mostly functioning government, as well as a military that fights against al Qaeda, keeping them on the move (while admittedly not capturing their leaders). There are no giant training camps in Pakistan. There are no recruitment centers. There are few if any weapons cache and there isn't an al Qaeda sponsored chemical and nuclear weapons program. All of that would happen in Iraq.

And, as if all of that isn't enough, we do take it upon ourselves to unilaterally strike at any al Qaeda targets in the one lawless area of the country.

By the way, didn't Barry suggest unilaterally bombing all of Pakistan? I guess I see why you're so fixated on it.

Now answer the question. Are you comfortable with a full withdrawl of all US troops from Iraq, never to return, damn the consequences?

"Except Pakistan has a central, mostly functioning government, as well as a military that fights against al Qaeda, keeping them on the move (while admittedly not capturing their leaders). There are no giant training camps in Pakistan. There are no recruitment centers. There are few if any weapons cache and there isn't an al Qaeda sponsored chemical and nuclear weapons program."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one, seriously.

9:13 - I take it by your non-response that your answer to my question is ...

Nothing. You have no answers. Go back to your proofing, let the grownups make the decisions.

wow, 8:57/9:13 = PWN3D. havnt seen a neocon do that in a while. lol

Nice self-commentary 9:19/9:16. BTW, I already answered your question at 9:05.

Nah, wasn't me that time. I didn't realize you were 9:05. So you disagree with Barry, then, that if we pull out of Iraq, and al Qaeda sets up shop, we should go back in?

You're comfortable with al Qaeda having unchecked authority and the resources to match, allowing them to develop any weapons system, and then sit back and use them at a time and place of their choosing?

We saw what they did in Afghanistan with the authority but without the resources that Iraq would bring them.

See, it's not fear-mongering. It's reality. I prefer al Qaeda in the shape they are in now... without any freedom to openly develop weapons, recruit, and plan. No, it doesn't require an active invading force in every country. Probably, in a couple of years, it won't require more than division in Iraq for that matter. But, unlike your pollyannaish assumptions, it does take some action.

Quick question for the anti-tax folks: don't we have to pay for stuff? Like roads and fighter planes and courthouses and the like? I mean, I don't like paying my taxes either, but given that I live in the most-powerful and best-outfitted country ever in history, I'm willing to pony up some green. No? Is this bananas?

please dems nominate obama the ONE term senator who is the limo liberal flavor of the month. it will make it that much easier for mccain to be elected in november!

Lat - why are you assuming a $10,000 charity deduction???

Most attorneys in NYC do not donate $10,000 to charity each year and this makes the hit from Obama's seem less than it would be for most in actuality. Take that away and just show the tax base on standard salary.

Lat - why are you assuming a $10,000 charity deduction???

Most attorneys in NYC do not donate $10,000 to charity each year and this makes the hit from Obama's seem less than it would be for most in actuality. Take that away and just show the tax base on standard salary.

time for the fair tax!

okay, question for you folks on a matter I don't know enough about:

If this is Obama's method to take care of the SS shortfall, what do McCain and HRC plan to do about it?

If they are not in favor of a tax cap removal, how do they plan to resolve this issue?

let's scrap the entire ss system, who can live on that chump change they pay out? i look at my annual statements from the ssa and just larf!

000-00-0002 damn roosevelt!

we deserve better than this two party system.

To fix SS, raise retirement age, reduce benefits. If we REALLY need more money in SS, cut spending elsewhere and divert that $$ into SS.

Regardless of how much you make, 40-50% income taxes is insane and raising taxes above that is not acceptable.

too bad mayor mike isn't running.

50% taxes is bordering on socialism

9:32, I assumed a $10,000 charity deduction because (1) I give a lot of money to charity, and (2) because a high charity figure helped the numbers for Obama, and I wanted to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt in the assumptions so that no one would accuse me of slanting the numbers against him.

You can download the spreadsheet and change the assumptions to better fit your personal situation.

9:48 - Yeah, though I suspect after defeating the trans fats here, he may invade other countries that continue to serve trans fats in their foods.

France and Italy, watch out!

"Tons of bullshit assumptions in that "analysis""

What bullshit assumptions are you talking about? That Obama would actually do what he said he'd do?

Ted Frank, if that's actually you posting, thanks for the analysis. People need to know the consequences of their choices.

You people thinking Obama is adding these taxes in order to pay down the national debt or make up for social security shortfalls are SADLY MISTAKEN.

These tax increases will do nothing but fund the vastly expanded entitlement programs Obama/Hillary have planned if they become president.

mayor mike best damn mayor this city ever has. can you imagine what this place would look like if dinkins, mark green and fast freddy had been in power over the past 16 years?

To 9:30. The argument isn't that we shouldn't be paying any money for gov services, it's that what Obama is asking for is beyond reason.

Way to knock down a straw man.

No one would be arguing with a 50% tax rate if you grew up with a 70% tax rate. It's all perception. Get it in your head that your salary really isn't your salary, half of it is for the government.

70% wouldn't be acceptable either. Government doesn't provide anything that is worth 70% of my income.

I think we need to stop all deductions from paychecks.

Every first year associate gets a check for $13,333 each month. Then, they have to write a check out to the federal government for their federal taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes.

Add one to the state, and one to the city.

If everyone had to do that, rather than just blindly looking at the deposit that hits their bank accounts, I bet there would be a bit more of an outcry.

Whoever's idea it was to force payroll deductions is a genious, and was well worth their government salary.

bottom line is that the really wealthy pay a smaller % in taxes than the w-2 earners. no truly weathy person would ever pay 70%, 50% or even 20% in taxes, why because their tax advisors will always find a way around the system.

yeah when you have to send in estimates every quarter writing those checks is pretty fucking painful.

"Get it in your head that your salary really isn't your salary, half of it is for the government."

Acquiesence to this kind of thinking is what eventually gives you Soviet Union c. 1987.

In Soviet Russia, car drives you

"Get it in your head that your salary really isn't your salary, half of it is for the government."

Acquiesence to this kind of thinking is what eventually gives you Soviet Union c. 1987.

I agree, this is a pretty scary f*cking thought. I thought we fought the revolutionary war over sh*t like this.

"Get it in your head that your salary really isn't your salary, half of it is for the government."

Acquiesence to this kind of thinking is what eventually gives you Soviet Union c. 1987.

communism seems to work really well, watching the ny phil. on pbs last night really made me watch to move to north korea. hey at least there is no traffic!

don't worry the u.s. population is either too dumb or too smart to elect obama depending which side you are on.

LOL, only because Soviet Russia is no longer an option.

The jackass mascot is certaintly just as fitting today as it ever was. Screw all the morons who want to live in a nanny state and the robinhood thieves who they vote for.

9:30: "[D]on't we have to pay for stuff? Like roads and fighter planes and courthouses and the like?"

You mean, like, stuff that actually has a basis in Congress's enumerated powers. Sure. But defense spending, including the oh-so-expensive Iraq war, makes up about 20% of the federal budget for FY2008. SS, Medicare, and Medicaid run about 54%. I would also point out that President Bush's FY09 defense spending request is only 4.5% of GDP, which is far lower than the 6.7% post-WWII annual average.

"Pictures are hung; people are hanged."

I beg to differ.

In Soviet Russia, tax governs you

*AUDACIOUSLY HOPES FOR A BIGASS DONUT OR ELSE I'M MOVING TO TEXAS*

How about Mr. Barney Frank uses his math to calculate Clinton's tax plan implications? Last time I checked, it's still the primary and most of us are choosing between Obama and Clinton, for now...

Looks like Obama is losing some of the oh so powerful abovethelaw.com voting block. *shrugs*

Anyone who is paying 40-50% in taxes needs a better accountant - totally unnecessary.

12:59 AM, I know that she specifically rejected Obama's plan to remove the payroll tax plan. She's attacked him for this a number of times, particularly in the Nov 15 debate.

She says she wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So Obama is much more severe on the tax hikes.

12:56 AM--

AMEN! If there's no doughnut and NY compensation doesn't distinguish itself, it'd be VERY tough not to pack up the bags and move to a state w/ no income tax.

Barack Obama Op-Ed Excerpt:

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt

"Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

Mama mia!!!

Why did you support Obama over Clinton again?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3638710&page=2

"For her part, Clinton opposes both the Obama idea of imposing new taxes on those making $97,000 per year and the Edwards proposal to tax those making $200,000 per year."

Why did you support Obama over Clinton again?

"For her part, Clinton opposes both the Obama idea of imposing new taxes on those making $97,000 per year and the Edwards proposal to tax those making $200,000 per year."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3638710&page=2

Charlie: "They said you was hung."

Sheriff Bart: "They was right."

Lat: I love you.

Ted: You are brilliant!

McCain: Rock On!

Republican Lawyers: Stay strong!

Why do so many lawyers like Obama? The dude would be a terrible president. His ideas suck and his leadership is unproven.

GWB makes me look fiscally conservative.

Can we just have a Fair Tax please? Solves all this BS.

Sadly, this site has jumped the shark.

Lat, maybe you should break the site in two, one site for people who want to hear about salaries, bonuses, summer associate horror stories and things like that, and another site for political ranting and raving.

Sadly, this site has jumped the shark.

Lat, maybe you should break the site in two, one site for people who want to hear about salaries, bonuses, summer associate horror stories and things like that, and another site for political ranting and raving.

I find the mathematical analysis involved in this discussion specious, and Ted's refusal to acknowledge the "donut hole" troubling. Even if everything he says is true, however, I'd vote for Obama anyway. Money is important. Freedom of choice, extricating ourselves from the quagmire in Iraq, repairing our National Identity, and providing health coverage to people who don't MAKE $34 k a year-- let alone have it to lose to social security-- is crucial.

TIME FOR THE FAIR TAX!

I find the mathematical analysis involved in this discussion specious, and Ted's refusal to acknowledge the "donut hole" troubling. Even if everything he says is true, however, I'd vote for Obama anyway. Money is important. Freedom of choice, extricating ourselves from the quagmire in Iraq, repairing our National Identity, and providing health coverage to people who don't MAKE $34 k a year-- let alone have it to lose to social security-- is crucial.

Wow. Last I heard, we got f***** for making
more than 150. So, not really sure if I can trust the 200 threshold.

Barack Obama is to taxes what Homer Simpson is to donuts--both never met one they didn't like.

Liberal_Lawyer, that is what private charity is for. Feel free to start buying up health care for whomever you want with your property. Call yourself Mother Theresa while you're at it. But, don't impose your morality on me.

Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary. If Obama gets the nom, I'm voting McCain. I will not consent to this ridiculous tax hike.

"For her part, Clinton opposes both the Obama idea of imposing new taxes on those making $97,000 per year and the Edwards proposal to tax those making $200,000 per year."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3638710&page=2

All taxes are socialist... f the poor b_stards who didn't go to school. Both of my parents were poor, Dad was a cop and Mom didn't work, and now I do well and am rich? B_sh_t. Over 150k in loans and I make too much to deduct student loan interest? I have a negative net worth of over 150k and I am rich? F the democrats, socailism, transfer payments, and all taxes.

Frank - Assuming that Cell C9 should be State Taxable Income from your W-2 if your are not in NY, then I believe you are missing a ( ) in cell D21

=IF($C9=-1,1000+6.85%*((D15-SUM(D16:D18))-20000),($C9-$C4)*$C10)

Hey, 1:32, who do you think subsidized your university and law school education? Get an f'ing clue ya schmuck.

2:40, if 1:32 went private schools, then the private sector subsidized it. If he went to public schools, then mostly the private sector and state government. We're not complaining about local taxes going to public schools. We're complaining about poors begging the talented and hard-working among us to make their lives better without allowing us to reap the benefits of our contributions.

You people are PATHETIC. Ted Frank talks about a 5th year associate taking home ~11k/month, but what do you make as a 1st year? About $8k/month after taxes? $180k of school loans on an aggressive 10 year payment schedule comes in at about $2k/month. So you're left with SIX GRAND A MONTH, cash, to pay for rent & food & drinks etc.

Six grand a month is a LOT of money. You, my friends, are rich, any way you slice it. I took a public interest job after law school and am currently making do, in the highest COL market in the country, on one third of that. Some of my coworkers are making do on LESS than one third of that. Sock four grand a month into a savings account, and live on the rest, and then come crying to me about how tough it is to make ends meet.

Better yet, give that four grand to me. you know what I'd do with it? I'd be freaking rich.

(And I'd pay my taxes without whining, because at the end of the day I'd still be freaking rich.)

4:24, we're not asking for your sympathy. We ask nothing of our fellow citizens. Many of us donate a significant amount of our limited time to pro bono work. Others donate significant amounts to charity. All of us pay tons of taxes as is, and over 50% of those taxes are redistributed to those who did not earn the income...and we get no credit. Instead you and others butt into our lives and accuse us of being greedy. How about a "thank you"

There are three things one can do with income...spend for necessities, spend for non-necessities (including giving), and save. Every one of you out there decides what you do with your income. Your disposal of that income goes into one or more of those three categories. Spending for necessities (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and medical care) is the #1 priority for everyone but idiots and drug addicts. After that, some Americans save some money before spending on non-necessities. Others spend all of the rest on non-necessities. A growing number even borrow more money to spend on non-necessities. The savings rate in this country is negative at the moment...the average person spends more than they bring in in income. So, how does this relate to taxation?

I think 95% of people in this country would agree that no one should be taxed if their income doesn't meet the amount needed to pay for necessities. After that point, what is wrong with a flat tax or a consumption tax (such as the fairtax)? Why should some people be able to keep a greater percentage of their disposable income than others?

My ideal tax system would be one in which everyone gets a free ride up to the poverty line (presumably the amount of income necessary to pay for necessities). After that point, everyone should have to pay in at the same percentage. I think a national retail sales tax (with a monthly rebate to cover the tax on necessities) would be the most fair and efficient way to collect this tax and would encourage savings/investment. However, a simple flat tax with no deductions and a 0% rate under the poverty line and one set rate above the poverty line would also be acceptable to me. We should get rid of payroll taxes altogether...after all, they are spent immediately anyway.

I'd like to hear some of the dems out there propose their ideal plan. Do you support a 100% bracket (or overall cap on income)? What is the maximum rate you believe people should pay? How much should you have to earn before you start to incur tax liability?

Why don't people realize that the "problem" of the shrinking middle class is caused by their move to the upper class?

1:50 - The spreadsheet formula for D21 is correct for purposes of the Obama-McCain comparison. Your mistake is that you should be putting the number from Box 17 (not your state income) of your W-2 into cell C9. The result is only an approximation of state income tax; your actual state income tax will differ somewhat.

Frugal Man at 4:24, you're overlooking a couple of things:

1. Some private loans are at double digit interest rates. I know I count myself extremely lucky to only have 8% loans remaining and that I pay "only" about $14,400 in interest a year. So with only a $2,000 payment, the principal of that $180,000 is only going down $9,600 per year.

2. Most people don't stay in BigLaw for 10 years. Most can't, even if they want to. The attrition rate is extremely high, and very few of each incoming class will be promoted to partner. So, for the average law student graduating with debt, they have a window of 3 to 5 years to make money to pay off their six figure loans. After that, time for a new job, with an average salary of $60,000 or so. Most of us hope to be out of debt by that point, so that we can use that $60K salary on things like saving for retirement or for a home (both of which have been put by the wayside in our race to get the private student loans out of our life).

Hey why stop at social security cap? We should just institute a 100% flat income tax. Then, we can create the Federal Uniform Commission for Known Income Outlays and Uses ("FUCK-IOU").

The FUCK-IOU would then assess the merits of each member of society and assign to each according to their needs. Under the FUCK-IOU system, everyone would have access to food, clothing, cars, health care, beer and floor seats at the Knicks games. Sure, you'd have to wait in line for everything. But, with FUCK-IOU in place, no one would ever have more than anyone else. When will the dems get us to FUCK-IOU?

So my fellow friends nothing is fairer than a FUCK-IOU.

I have one statement and one question:

Statement: 90% of people who decide to go to law school have already demonstrated that they do not have good economical sense (i.e., law school is very expensive and only rarely do the returns live up to the expectations that motivate people to go to law school for money).

Next, I understand people disliking the idea of big tax hikes (whether from the Bush administration or the next administration). I understand people want to keep more of the money they 'earn.' I also understand that people associate democrats (broadly speaking) with large tax hikes. So, some people don't like the democrats. But, aren't the republicans (broadly speaking) responsible for the falling value of the dollar?

My question (one I am genuinely asking), is why are the people who are denouncing the democrat tax hikes so worried about the bare number of 'dollars' in their pockets, while at the same time seemingly unflustered by the fact that the value of those dollars is sinking? It's as if they're saying, "I have a hundred dollar bills; do not take ten of my dollars bills in taxes; but I don't mind if you make each dollar worth 50 cents of buying power." Why? Or what am I missing?

7:28, I am a conservative and the short answer is that I am "flustered" by both the new taxes and the upcoming inflation. The Bush administration has spent like money like they just won the lottery, the people of this country are consuming at a rate faster than they earn, the trade deficit is at unthinkable levels, and ag commodities are going through the roof because of the "promises of ethanol." Not to mention oil prices. We're borrowing more money in a couple of months in order to hand out $600-1200 checks in the hopes that people will spend them. We're also set to consider bailing idiots out of the mortgages that they shouldn't have been in the first place. At the same time, we feel so flush with cash that we are paying for 20+ year retirements of many healthy and wealthy old folks. We're now paying their drug bills as well, not to mention providing them with medicare/medicaid. We're also asking 10% of our country to fund over 90% of this hilarity.

What if you treated your personal finances the way the government treats its? You would have a shitty credit score and it would cost you a fortune to borrow money. Creditors would be getting ready to rain down upon you. What would you do to fix it? You would cut out the luxuries, perhaps find cheaper housing, work a little harder to bring in more income, and by God balance your budget. You would plan ahead in a logical manner. It would take years to get things right, but it would be worth it. What we need is for both sides to get together, say "no" to any new entitlements, say "no" to earmarks, and focus efforts bringing some efficiency to what we're already doing. That would be a start.

Happy Leap Day!

7:28, law school does make economical sense. Before going I projected cash flows of the job I would've taken and likely increases in salary over the years. I then looked at the costs of law school including tuition, books, fees, and opportunity costs along with the salary I command on the back end. My break even point is year 5 or 6 out of law school. Assuming I make it past that point, law school will have been a good economic move.

Right on, 6:55.... The democrats are definitely looking to ass rape us. I don't want Obama to institute the FUCK-YOU.

Frank - can you please explain the "Personal Deduction" at $3500? Do you mean the "Standard Deduction" for a single person ($5350)?

Anon 2/29 10:34: No, I mean the personal deduction of $3500. See line 42 of Form 1040. (It's $3400 for tax year 2007.) Our young associate will not take the standard deduction, because she will save taxes by itemizing, unless she both lives in a zero-tax state and doesn't give anything to charity.

There's something rather Orwellian about describing mathematical calculations as "ridiculous propaganda."

It brings to mind Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, where science was brought into the political sphere and presenting physical evidence that countered the politically-favored theories could be a capital crime.

-Michael Pelletier.

Wow, that was incoherent.

Not sure what any of that is supposed to mean -- this guy can't write a comprehensible sentence (do your clients actually pay you for such drivel?)

I make a lot more than $250k per year, and my federal tax rate, which my accountant helpfully calculates for me every year, topped out at about 23% during the Clinton years. That's not counting the fact that I make a lot of money from investments for which I pay basically nothing in taxes.

Under Bush, my federal tax rate went down by about 2 points, but I'm smart enough to realize its a temporary tax cut. You can't cut taxes way below what is needed to fund the government, and spend a trillion dollars on a war, without raising taxes. McCain might keep them taxes low too, but he wants to spend a trillion more in Iraq, plus start wars with Iran and Russia, so I'm pretty sure the 80% rates that were used to fund WWII are just a matter of time if McCain gets elected.

I've always voted against my economic interest, why stop now. The spreadsheets are very helpful. Can you do one for marrieds, or should we get divorced?