RON PAUL!

Thanks ATL for turning NY into a red state.

Thanks for the shill, Lat.

Wow...I wonder if there are really some knee-jerk liberal democrats in BigLaw out there that are just figuring out that voting for a democrat will hurt them financially? Can they really have been so clueless?

Holy Crap.

First for McCain

thank you 10:27 - now spread that word like wildfire. slightly higher taxes for rich fine, but take away the cap? not acceptable!

another reason to vote against this dipsh_t empty suit

why dont you add hillary

If I remember correctly, the AMT "solution" was a one year quick fix. What happens if nobody puts in a permanent solution. Or in other words, does this even matter if we are stuck paying AMT next year?

news flash people - you'll probably pay higher taxes with democrats. then again, you at least have a chance at effective government. So all you "greed is good"-ers out there can just chill out.

Change in your pocket is all that you'll have left if Obama becomes president.

I come from a blue collar immigrant family so I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and worked very hard to get to where I am today. This is exactly why I WON'T be voting for the Democratic nominee for president in Nov. Why exactly should I be funding the rest of the country's po-dunk citizens who can't get their act together? The majority of the money that I earn should go into my pocket not some welfare mother with 15 children. Flame away I don't care. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

10:30- getting hurt a little bit financially isn't that big of a deal. However, losing ~$15K in takehome pay and taking away my Social Security cap is like getting kicked in the balls.

I think the real question is whether he's going to commit us to never ending war because somebody who lives near somebody else who did something bad ruined his Dad's legay?

Who's up for 4 more years of diminished civil liberties and government by Exxon?

Cheney/Satan 08!

10:30 a.m...... Yes, liberals can be so clueless as to not recognize that an Obama vote will cost them tens of thousands of dollars in social redistribution policies. You work hard and your reward is the fruits of your efforts are taken away and redistributed. But hey... all the dems out there love this type of stuff.

"We all know that Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts. That is a 3% bump across the board to the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%."

Yep, the bad old days. When the economy went through the roof, and first-year associate salaries went for $85k to $125k practically overnight. It's enough to make one tremble in fear, I tell ya!

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

This is no news. You know if you vote Democrat your taxes will go up. With either Oba-man or Hill-dog.
With this, even Huckabee looks sexier every day.

10:35 - You will pay for the others no matter what.

HTH

10:34,
There's absolutely no evidence that says that Democrats establish a more effective government than Republicans.
Newsflash: you're a dipshit commie

Anon 10:32: the AMT doesn't matter nearly as much as the social security tax cap.

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

I've actually seen him talk recently about changing the social security cap to a social security gap. So, between 100,000 something and a higher income level, there is no SS tax, but above the higher income level, the SS tax kicks in again.
He may have changed his position though.

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

Yeah, where is the Hillary column?

Ted Frank says - " Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap."

Obama said - "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." http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt

Ted, do you see what you did? What you said and what Obama said are not exactly the same thing. How about a little journalistic integrity?

change in my pocket is all that i have left right now. OBAMA.

Actually, this posting is inaccurate. Obama plans to create a doughnut hole in the system so that you won't pay additional FICA taxes on income between 102K - 250K. It's not until you make 250K that you begin to pay any additional FICA taxes, so all these figures are incorrect.

Thanks for this write-up LAT, $34K is big $$$, may have some folks re-think their vote in Nov.

C'mon, Lat: stop your Hillary trolling. It's obvious you are a supporter of hers and that you don't get the hype about Obama, and are frustrated by it. Hillary is, in your words, what you would consider quite the "diva."

this is why the democratic party consists of the really rich, who aren't significantly affected by tax rates, and the really poor, who don't pay taxes anyway. this is also why i hate democrats. all of them. f-ing bastards want to take my property to redistribute to the lazy, stupid and weak.

10:34 - wouldn't effective government cost less than what you must be assuming is an ineffective government now? I want some efficiency in the white house.

My question about the elimination of the SS cap is whether the SS benefits I receive can now increase. Because right now, I believe, just as there is a cap on the amount of tax you can pay in during the year, there's a cap on how much SS will pay out at retirement age. Does Obama's elimination of the cap also increase the benefits that SS can pay out to higher wage-earners? Or does it simply take more from the higher earning to fund this f'ed-up Ponzi scheme of a Social Security system.

But I voted for Hillary.

This post is completely disingenuous. A direct quote from the linked article:
"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."

One option is to RAISE the cap. He does say that it could apply to all earnings, but that doesn't seem ironclad, and there's alot of space to raise the cap between $102,000 and $280,000. But I appreciate the attempt at scare politics.

10:41 - you are pathetic.

what 1040 said. partisan bs aside, this is why atl should stick to what it does best and leave politics to the pros. nice work ted frank, dumb ass.

Bill in Chicago (10:36AM) seems to be operating under the common democrat misunderstanding that the Clinton administration had something to do with the dot com boom.

Oh, and Anonymous at 10:36 AM, I know the dems are all for socialist redistribution, but I didn't think that would apply to BigLaw associates who feel like they work so hard for their money...I thought that attitude was reserved for the guilty super-rich (who get a psychic benefit from redistribution) and the lazy poor (who stand to benefit personally from the redistribution).

As someone who actually followed Bush's push for Social Security reform, and examined the options, I think the SS cap should be raised a bit, but not eliminated. However, considering that the SS shortfall is the result of people retiring in the next 20 years not gathering the strength to fix it themselves, a better fix would be to adjust SS payments accordingly to the inflation rate annually, rather than at a rate faster than inflation, and to raise the age of retirement until at least 70. I'm sick and tired of all these old people draining young people of their future because they refused to fix it themselves, and face a little hardship, when they first learned of the problem.

Lat, please quite carrying the Federalist Society's water.

In a November 15 debate in Nevada, Obama said he'd eliminate the cap entirely, and that was alright because it would only affect the "upper class."

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

In other speeches, he has suggested a "doughnut hole" between $102,000 and $200,000--which, combined with Obama's other tax plans, would still be a five-digit tax increase for mid-level associates, and would still mean a marginal tax rate of over 51% for all but first-year New York associates.

Of course what this analysis ignores is political reality: the fact is that though McCain claims to want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, he would have to get a Democratic Congress to agree to that in 2010 (the tax cuts expire and require a new vote). Most political observers would agree that the middle-class tax cuts will be renewed; but thinking that a Democratic Congress would renew tax cuts for the most wealthy (like big law associates) -- keep dreaming. On income taxes, the difference between McCain and Obama in reality will be 0 -- the gravy train for the rich that was the Bush tax cuts will be over in 2010. Oh, and did you also fail to mention that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Well at least this will teach the high leveraged firms a lesson when partners loose 20K per associate

10:35 - If you really are a blue collar immigrant, way to sell out your people. Clarence Thomas would be proud.

It's really pathetic to see many of my fellow biglaw associates so consumed by greed that they's lost (or never acquired) any sense of social responsibility for the genuinely less fortunate in our society.

Sure there are welfare queens out there, but there are MANY more people whose backs you stand on that deserve social services. And our rich asses can afford to pay for it.

How much will taxes have to go up to keep up this *&%$ing war?
And how much is habeas corpus keeping the government from "disappearing" you worth? I'd easily give 34k.

10:42 - i think you're confusing "effective" and "cheap". Quite frankly to pay for all of Bush's reckless spending over the last 7 years, no matter who the president is money is going to have to come from somewhere (Bush got rid of the previous budget surplus pretty fast - ahem - how many billions a day does the war cost us?).

I'd rather take my chances with someone who does more than wear an American flag pin on their lapel. Civil liberties, war in Iraq, environment, these sorts of things. Some things are more important than the fact that us big time lawyers with six figure salaries are upset that a few less luxury items might be coming our way.

besides the really rich pay a smaller % in taxes since most own their own businesses and are able to have a number of write offs and tax "shelters". it is the W-2 earners making $200K-$800K that really feel the pain in this country. No tax credits, get hit with the AMT, can't contribute to Roth IRAs, etc. My effective tax rate (federal, state, local) is about 40%-45% where as my father's effective tax rate (who owns his own business and makes at least 10 times more a year than I do) is about 10%-15%. Also remember 50% of the people in the US pay ZERO income tax, seems like a very fair system.

"On Above the Law, we regularly see commenters threaten to abandon law firms for falling $5,000/year short of market. I therefore thought it worthwhile to examine the effects of Obama’s tax and spending plans on take-home pay."

Big difference between paying higher taxes so others can have social services, and losing $5,000 so some a**hole can be a little more rich.

That is why you should be married, own a home, live in Texas, and not pay near as much in taxes.

Still, we should all vote for McCain to avoid paying more taxes and then those of us who made the correct choice to live in Texas in the first place, will be adequately compensated post tax as we deserve to be.

Notwithstanding all of the (correct) comments above regarding the shoddy journalistic work seen here, one other point should probably be mentioned: the President does not actually enact the tax laws. Many of the president's tax proposals just fall by the wayside. This post is alarmist and dumb.

10:43 - YOU ARE PATHETIC!

Can someone run the numbers real quick on how this would affect years 1 through 4 as an associate? Obviously it would be less of an impact, but probably significant nonetheless.

So, we shouldn't raise taxes, but continue to bankrupt the country with the war in iraq? Sounds fiscally responsible to me!

This country has been very good to me. Given that, I certainly don't mind having my tax rate slightly bumped up. When I meet my maker, I'll feel a lot better knowing I voted to end this god awful war at the expense of 15k or so in taxes.

Can someone run the numbers real quick on how this would affect years 1 through 4 as an associate? Obviously it would be less of an impact, but probably significant nonetheless.

Doesn't Obama want to elimiate the marraige penalty? That should offset most of these increases for those that are married.

How else are we going to pay for this failed republican war Lat?

Wait, you mean the guy who's a Federalist shill and Hillary suck-up wants to rip on Obama by posting misleading (if not outright false) information regarding his fiscal proposals.

I am shocked. Shocked.

Take away my Soc Sec cap? he just lost my vote.

Well, that was the idea of the piece, wasn't it?

The way Ted wants it, we'll just let our kids pay for all the money we spend. Why should we pay for our stuff if we can figure out a way to screw the next generation?

I just love giving money to the federal government. They spend it so wisely.

10:48 - I am not selling out anyone. My parents, who came to this country in debt back in the 70s and have achieved much more then most of us ever will, are just as appalled by the Dems as I am. They believe that hard work should be rewarded. My parents and many like them have never been on public assistance and never taken a handout. Even when my dad lost his job in the early 90s. This country was build on hard work. If I wanted to live in a socialist country where they tax their citizens income at over 50% I would move to France.

Ted,

Instead of referencing some comments from Nov., why don't you look at what Obama said yesterday (and update your inaccurate or dishonest post):

During the forum, Obama referenced a “doughnut hole” where people would not start paying the payroll tax until their incomes reached $200,000 or $250,000.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/25/obama.html

Time for the fair tax.

even the comments by democrats are stupid. raising taxes slows economic growth you imbeciles. the bush tax cuts have dramatically increased revenue due to increased GDP. it's not about paying for social services, which are counterproductive at worst, ineffective at best. it's about wealth distribution.

communism doesn't work you stupid a-holes. this is America. the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the federal government would be using its police power to cease our property to this extent.

and f-u to you whining bastards that say "bring our troops home," blah blah blah. I AM A UNITED STATES MARINE. you d-bags likely don't even know anyone in the military. you don't "support the troops;" you support getting a democrat in power to achieve your agenda. you don't give a shit about the troops or the ideals upon which this country was founded. you are spoiled brats. limousine liberals.

Ted Frank . . . Nice work hustling to find support for your original comment. Here's the thing, if you knew that there was a better cite to support your point when you wrote the article, why did you take the disengenuous route and use a cite that does not fully support your point? Could it be that you were more concerned with establishing your conclusion than with adequately supporting it?

I'll answer for you - "I'm sorry guys. I'm a total hack. What I do is find a conclusion that I like and then do the best I can to find links that kind of support it. Some people call it 'truthiness' but it's all I know."

Thanks Obama for helping to pay for the war. We love you.

from Obama's website "Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
He definitely wants to increase the cap on payroll taxes. Like everything else he does not have a concrete plan, but he certainly HOPES he can CHANGE the current system and take more of your CHANGE.

10:42 -- before you begin to create an even greater sense of entitlement amongst the non-working class let's take a quick moment and examine exactly who is standing on whose back.

The truth is that the top 25% of wage earners in this country pay over 86% of the tax bill (it is the bottom 75% that is standing on our hard-working backs). Nevertheless, you want to make this country a fair place. How much of your paycheck did you donate to charity, perhaps you should think about donating more in the name of fairness? I, for one, could care less what you do with your money---so please, have the same consideration for mine. Buy all the fishing poles you want (oh, wrong party -- you fish for the "less fortunate" so they can expect never to lift a finger to survive).

Try supporting a family with your Biglaw income in NYC and I think you will have a new definition of "rich."

The Democrats are wealth-redistributors at their finest. Their loyal followers are going to get a check from the US treasury when the fact of the matter is that they are getting a check from my fricken bank account. Let's just forget about the tax code and give anyone making less than $150,000 per year the opportunity to mug at least on Big Law associate a month and take between $350 to $1000 per mugging depending on how poor they are.

I'd pay far more than $34k per year to restore honor and integrity to the white house.

..but then again, I had enough belief in myself to go for a scholarship at a lower ranked school and not have to pay for my education and I am still getting paid as much as all of you. Therefore, I have less to pay in school loans so this doesn't affect me. All I can say to the rest of you is to come up with an investment plan so you don't have to pay so much. Don't you all work in BIGLAW? Can't you figure out some sort of Investment Vehicle to get around this? Somebody you know has to be an accountant or tax lawyer. Put your nose to the grindstone, figure out some way to reduce your tax load and lets get back our standing in the world and our civil liberties.

When these fifth year associates are drafted by McCain, they won't have to worry about the socsec cap anymore.

can someone do a chart that adds a column for all the future tax increases we'll need to pay the interest (much less the principle) on the hundreds of billions we borrowed to fight in iraq?

i'd feel much better about a tax increase to keep social security solvent than a tax increase to bomb the crap out of brown people.

Hey guys, Don't worry too much. All Obama has is empty rhetorics. He wouldn't do anything of the sort. In fact, I don't think he will change anything.

Just vote for him to make yourself and our nation feel good, OK?

"the most wealthy (like big law associates)"

Who can say that with a straight face?!'

Hey, 11:00 am

Nice way to engage in debate and prove your point...so you're a US marine, does that make you the authority on everything, and everyone that disagrees with you simply wrong? You're everything that's wrong with America, not the "limousine liberals".

sorry 10:42 -- that was for 10:48

It's great to mention that this guy blogs for Overlawyered, but not that he's on staff at the American Enterprise Institute, where they still think that Cheney has some great ideas on government.

The latte-sipping limousine liberals who support Obama aren't even smart enough to realize they're voting against their own self-interests. Plus it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside to vote for a black person. "See, I must be a good person, because I'm voting for Hussein Obama!!" Pathetic.

There needs to be a breakdown of how the Fair Tax Plan greatly benefits young associates still paying down their law school debt. Assume full debt for law school.

Hillary is hot

10:51 has it right. One of the things that's scary on the Democrats tax plans is that mid-to-senior level associates are at the worst possible spot for taxes. We make enough to lose a lot of the deductions, lose the chance to do an IRA, and get hit by the AMT. But we don't make enough to simply ignore the impact of taxes, and the cap on the SS payroll tax is one of the only real breaks that we get.

The other thing that is uniquely bad for associates is that our jobs, and the money we earn, are essentially temporary. I'm on NY scale as an 8th year, making $280 plus bonus. If you told me that you were going to freeze my current compensation, but I could keep my job for as long as I wanted (assuming I performed well) I would take it. But we all know that's not the way it works. So if you clerk for a year, as many in Biglaw do, you essentially have 7 or 8 years to sock away money before, in most cases, hitting a drastic pay cut. And once you hit that pay cut (by going in-house or to the government, or teaching, or going to a smaller firm (if that option is available) you stand a good chance of never making Biglaw money again.

That's not to say that you will be poor (few in the U.S. are truly poor) or that you can't have a financially secure life making much less than a senior associate. But it does seem that a lot of the commenters aren't keeping the "up or out" dynamic in mind when discussing the fairness of substantially increasing the already-high tax burden on those Biglaw associates earning between $200K and $300K per year.

Sure, let's keep taxes low, spend the next 100 years spending billions in Iraq, run up the national debt, force us to pay drastically higher taxes 20 years from now, and cripple the economic security of this country.

Ricardian Equivalence.

Anonymous 10:56. Not including special bonus effects, the decrease in take-home pay/equivalent paycut is:

First-year: $8420/$14600
Second-year: $11846/$20592
Third-year: $13884/$24134
Fourth-year: $17062/$29659
Sixth-year: $22035/$38303

Give or take, since I'm making assumptions about the change of bonus (and these associates were selfish and didn't give any money to charity), about the availability of other deductions, and about how NY will structure its taxes 2009. I'll send the spreadsheet to anyone who wants it, and you can fiddle with the pay assumptions yourself, though the spreadsheet is NY-specific.

Hillary has said clearly that she would not eliminate the cap. Obama has said many times that he thinks eliminating the cap is a good idea.

All Obama has to do is be clear about what he wants to do. Hillary is clear that she wont do it.

" I AM A UNITED STATES MARINE. you d-bags likely don't even know anyone in the military. you don't "support the troops;"

Wow buddy, before you go shoot some people in a self-important rage, take a moment to remember where your salary as a MARINE comes from...

Maybe your right... maybe there shouldn't be any taxes at all...

LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE

If Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass these tax increases, I find a $100k per year job. I would rather a lot make less money (and work a lot fewer hours) than have those idiots do the equivalent of pissing my hundred dollar bills into the street.

the American Enterprise Institute is that bastion of rational thought that still thinks Global Warming is a farce - oh, and they are funded by, among other things, shitcans of money from ExxonMobil

Hey Lat - thanks for presenting such a well-reasoned, factually-accurate viewpoint from a truly neutral source

11:00(1) - So because your parents worked hard and made it, everybody can? You're completely oversimplifying the issue. I know lots of people that are working harder than you can imagine, but not making it because they didn't have two loving parents and never were able to get a decent education.

I'll bet the vast majority of people who fume over high taxes and social services have never lived, worked, or socialized with people in low-income communities.

I must be in the wrong place. Shameless political blogging: I can get that anywhere.

Time to look for a new blog.

Anonymous 11:08, every tax plan to help people with student loans is phased out well before they reach BigLaw salaries. You can deduct interest on student loans today, but not if you're making $200,000.

first

1. McCain's Iraq policy is guaranteed to ramp up federal military spending in a prolonged effort to stabilize Iraq. That type of financial outlay is guaranteed to accelerate the rate of inflation. You might have more money in your pocket, but that doesn't help if its worth less.

2. The chart is misleading - it assumed that McCain does nothing about Social Security, which does not seem feasible. They will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits. I'm not confident in McCain's ability to cut benefits. And if Bush couldn't privatize with a Republican House and Senate after he just won reelection, McCain will be even less likely.

3. If McCain does nothing on Social Security, those deficits will have a further inflationary impact.

I think it would be more balanced and responsible to at least attempt to calculate what happens if McCain either does nothing on SS or does something with a tax impact.

From Obama’s website: “Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security…”

From the article cited by Frank: “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.”

Now, I’m not a neo-conservative hack working at a think tank in the pocket of the Republican party, but I think “increasing the maximum” and “raise the cap” do not mean “end the social-security tax cap.” But then again I read above a third grade level…

Hey, Lat -- How about equal time, such as a post headlined "McCain = Your great grandsons get to die in the Iraqi occupation in 2108?"

The next prez--either McCain or Obama--has been screwed by Bush: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

At least without Iraq draining our tax dollars, we can begin our way to:

1. not being owned by China and Japan
2. affordable health care
3. making sure THIS generation actually gets some of the Social Security we paid for

Obama '08!

Guys,
Remember that social security is an investment in your future. The money going to SSI is invested in a lock box, and you will get all of it back (plus a substantial return), when you retire.
Also, I am currently seeking investors for a lucrative business opportunity connected to Amway. Please subscribe to my newsletter if you are interested.
Sincerely,
Someone who invests your money for you so you dont lose it all in that crazy "stock market" (D-America)

Isn't there always a big difference between what politicians say and what they actually do? Will Obama really implement this stuff? Isn't he just trying to talk a lot of smack to gain votes without any intention of actually implementing it?

11:05 - i am a Marine so i know first hand that liberals don't "support the troops." i saw how you bitches tried to keep recruiters off my ivy league campus. i know first hand how you shallow weasels look down upon us. of course you think that i'm "everything that's wrong with this country." you, of course, owe your freedom to say that to those that have worn the uniform. but you're too much of a pampered baby to appreciate that.

so i say again, F-U for trying take my hard-earned money so you can sleep better at night thinking that you are "helping the needy" or some other crap. this country was built on hard work, not handouts.

"If Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass these tax increases, I find a $100k per year job. I would rather a lot make less money (and work a lot fewer hours) than have those idiots do the equivalent of pissing my hundred dollar bills into the street."

Agreed. I work my ass off for this money: I already wonder why keep doing this when I lose 43% or so of what I "make." If there's a time when my effective tax rate is such that I take home less than half of what I earn, I'll let someone else burn out to pay a lot of taxes.

11:11, if it makes you feel better, I don't feel global warming is a farce, I drive a Prius, and I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax if we can get worldwide compliance to avoid the counterproductive effect of driving manufacturing away to nations with worse carbon profiles than the US.

And, like I said, there are other reasons to vote for president than one's wallet.

I love the "you are pathetic" rejoinders. Very effective advocacy.

I am more than happy to (and do) share with others through charities that actually help the less fortunate, but giving money to the government is and always will be like flushing it down the toilet.

Biglaw for McCain!!

Ahem. I just saw the most recent update of the "Inconvenient Truth" slide show. Bad things happening way faster than we thought. Remember that big 'ole ice sheet over Greenland? Bitch is moving now. And if it falls off . . . Well, that $34,000 pay cut prolly won't matter so much, what with Manhattan underwater and so forth.

Might could fix this thing. Gonna take $$ though . . .

I agree with 11:02 - try raising 2 kids on a Biglaw NYC salary and see how "rich" you are. Taxes break you already (and I live in NJ so my taxes are lower than real New Yorkers), and buying is unaffordable (I could afford a mortgage, but just not the down payment). But I guess we, being part of the leisure class, deserve to pay more, right?

I want my kids to grow up in a healthy country, but I need them to grow up in a healthy household first. If taxes go up, I'll have to find a new job outside Biglaw.

11:00(2), please take your PTSD meds and have a nice steaming mug of STFU.

I just got financially crushed... by Obama.

Wait, Obama got the nomination? No? THEN SHOW HILLARY'S PLAN AS WELL.

PATHETIC.

Seriously, this post requires a follow up that addresses what happens if McCain is President. Here's his solution to funding SS off his website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm

"Reform Social Security: John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power."

That's it. The rest of the website is silent on the issue. His plan is the Bush plan on SS, and it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. He'll end up passing a social security tax increase a-la Ronald Reagan (meaning the tax burden will be the same or worse than Obama's). But the inflationary impact of doing nothing, combined with military spending, will be staggering.

There's the GOP in a nutshell. After it was revealed that his assertions about what Obama will do are false, Ted Frank refuses to admit he is wrong and instead says 'Oh, he mentioned this is something he might do in a speech once.' Absolutely pathetic.

"Big difference between paying higher taxes so others can have social services, and losing $5,000 so some a**hole can be a little more rich."

Yes, because US social services spends our money so effeciently and wisely on those that just catch a bad break...

Life at the bottom: S.F.'s Sunnydale project

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNB4RN991.DTL

For the TX biglaw associate, this also has enormous ramifications. A democratic candidate could mean having to hold-off on the 3rd car garage at your weekend lakehouse.

A republican candidate = 3rd car garage PLUS a new 3rd car!

I'm glad Ted is taking the time to respond to tangential posts but continues to ignore a substantive and damning critique of his analysis regarding what Obama has actually suggested.

Well played, sir.

11:22 - Obama is also going to take a percentage of your kids for the good of the country.

Also, the deficit was a lot smaller before the Democrat Party took over Congress and started spending like drunk four years olds. Remember, they took over in January of 2007.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MJU5901&show_article=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/national/main3822385.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3822385

If Ted Frank posts again, I'll boycott ATL. What an unbalanced pile.

Now let's see a calculation of how much the gov't will have to raise taxes to service and pay off the $10 trillion in additional national debt McCain's continuation of Bush policies will cost us...

11:23 - what's the matter? did the truth hurt your little feelings? awwwww, boo f-ing hoo. but go ahead and "support the troops" by demeaning their injuries and attempting to quell their voice. that's the liberal way.

and you nitwits think that you'll "restore honor and dignity" by voting for a freshman senator. ah yes, the last liberal in the oval office got his pee-pee sucked by an intern while authorizing military action. morons.

There's the GOP in a nutshell. After it was revealed that his assertions about what Obama will do are false, Ted Frank refuses to admit he is wrong and instead says 'Oh, he mentioned this is something he might do in a speech once.' Absolutely pathetic.

11:02 & 11:22 - Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you and your financial troubles. You just have no sense of what it is really like to struggle financially. And I'm not talking about your oh so crushing student loans. Give me a f*cking break.

11:17

I have friends, family members, and acquaintances that have fought for and/or died for this country. Don't lecture me on supporting the troops. What I have a problem with is not your status as a current/former marine, but rather your assumption that your military background entitles you an opinion that is worth more than mine, or even some so-called liberals that look down upon the troops. For the record, I don't support eliminating the payroll tax as the end-all and be-ll fix for SS. I don't support keeping military recruiters off of campuses, because frankly "don't ask, don't tell" sounds fine for me.

And calling me a "pampered baby"? I'm not the one who went to an ivy league school, and I'm saddled with debt from undergrad and currently law school.

And as far as "taking your hard earned money," if the military produces arrogant douchebags like yourself, I definitely don't want my "hard earned money" going to the GI Bill or any other social program supporting those like yourself.

11:25 and 11:25 and 11:31, when Hillary Clinton accused Obama of doing exactly what he said he would do (and what I presume he'll do in the spreadsheet I generated), Obama did not say "Oh, your figures are wrong, I really mean a doughnut hole," he defended his plan because it only affects the "upper class," i.e., you.

And even if Obama flip-flops and officially renounces his original plan to change to a doughnut hole plan at $200,000, my marginal tax rate analysis remains correct, and BigLaw associates are still taking a large hit.

I stand by my analysis.

I'm one half of a two-lawyer family, so if this happens, it's really going to impact me. I'm potentially in favor of it anyway, because I care about the sustainability of social services.

Why should I pay a lesser percentage of my salary to social security than someone who makes $200K less than me? No matter how you spin it, that's unfair. Yeah, we work like crazy, but so do a lot of people, for a whole lot less.

In any event, people should educate themselves about the positions of the candidates. It's not exactly news that Democrats tend to favor higher taxation than Republicans. While Lat has misrepresented Obama's position, those who are astonished by this idea have no one to blame but themselves.

I second 11:25 - Ted Frank, when will you explain / own-up-to your dishonest / sloppy reporting?

The real threat to our future wealth is the exploding national debt.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the last three presidents to spend increase spending at a slower rate than the growth of revenue were Clinton, Carter, and LBJ.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c2.cfm

15% of all government spending already goes toward interest payments on the national debt. Not paying the debt off, just interest payments. In other words, if not for the huge debt racked up under Reagan, Bush, and Bush, we could cut taxes by 15% and still be in the same place.

McCain plans to continue running huge deficits. He has yet to point out one substantial cut he would make to federal spending.

In the long run, raising taxes to pay off the deficit is a far smarter way to go. Especially for those of us who are young and earn high levels of income. We are the ones who will wind up bearing the burden of GOP deficit spending.

Guys in my high school used to pay in the 52% tax bracket all the time. It was no big deal.

Wow! The level of Hillary shilling is incredible! This is what it looks like a week before going 0-15 in primaries. To all you highly educated but math deficient cogs...This WAR is gonna get paid for whether you like it or not! McCain is a f'ing liar, he has to raise taxes. Iraq is costing US (that's true taxpayers) 9-12 BILLION a MONTH! In addition, by the end of next year half of the U.S. banks will be merged or shut down, interests rates will skyrocket (the rates are being artificially inflated...they are just printing new money w/ nothing backing it) companies will find it difficult to get money/loans, and they won't be able to hire new people which would mean higer unemployment and crime...I would rather NOT be tackling all of that and fighting a useless war w/ no end. You are gonna pay regardless! OBAMA '08- Time for some American Dignity for a Change!

re: 11:29 and Ted Frank lies-
I dont think anyone has "revealed that [Frank's] assertions about what Obama will do are false[.]" Obama says on his website he will seek to increase the cap on payroll taxes. He has given many speeches that include talk of eliminating the cap. He has also said he wants a donut. He has not taken a firm position. You would think a Senator would have a position on Social Security. President Bush has clearly pushed the issue with Congress repeatedly. Unfortunately, Obama, along with the rest of Congress, is afraid to touch the issue. If Obama's vague statements are being misinterpreted, Obama should come out with a more specific plan instead of begging for change.

Ted Frank - 11:11 here, you said "Hillary said," and "Obama didn't say." Where are the citations? Can you point us to a source, preferably one that actually stands for the proposition for which you cite it?

forget the inconvenient little fact that tax revenues tend to be inversely related to the tax rate

lower taxes = inreased spending = economic growth + a greater tax base

but wait, wouldn't it just be better if we gave all our money to the fed so they could spend it for us

"And even if Obama flip-flops and officially renounces his original plan to change to a doughnut hole plan at $200,000, my marginal tax rate analysis remains correct, and BigLaw associates are still taking a large hit."

Ted, how can you tax $80K that isn't supposed to be taxed and claim that the analysis remains correct?

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people: the notion that there is a real difference between Red and Blue politics.

My taxes already cover at least 8 kids to go to private school.

I can't afford one more.

You forgot one other thing - Obama's tax increases along with the low interest rates are going to hurt the economy, driving it into a serious recession with serious inflation.

It's amazing how many people fall for the Democrats are better on the economy line. No, the Democrats are better at taxing you and having the government spend on inefficient programs that hurt the economy.

And to those who ask "Why should I pay a lesser percentage of my salary to social security than someone who makes $200K less than me", the answer is obvious. Your social security benefit is capped. Why should someone have to pay so much more into a system that will not affect them in anyway? Furthermore, social security is an old age insurance program. Those with higher salaries are less likely to need such insurance. Usually those less likely to need insurance benefits pay lower rates.

The best way to help the working poor is to get the iron fist of government out of the economy and let the free market engine create jobs and wealth like it has been doing for years.

There is still nothing better at reducing poverty than a free market economy.

Nice try Lat, but we know of your inexplicable love for Hillary Clinton. Apparently no one else bothered to read Clinton's specious response on factcheck, which talks about eliminating the cap entirely, not raising it, which is what Obama supports (as factcheck tells you if you keep reading past your link).

You can criticize Obama for not coming down with a dollar amount at which the cap gets cut off, but you can't just assume that it's going away just because he's not your patron saint.

But hey, you scared a few dozen people into supporting Hillary. You might get a shot at being her next campaign manager.

11:32 - maybe you should've gone to an ivy league school, it would've helped your reading comprehension skills. i've already explained the context for telling you my status as a Marine. twice. this is of course no surprise to me, as i said before you and your ilk are stupid. here's a tip, take a class in logic and/or reasoning. it would also help your legal career.

I have a conscience, so I will be voting for a Democrat. Sure, it will mean that I won't be able to buy that second plasma t.v. or take that long vacation to Europe until next year. But I'm not some short-sighted Republican moron who can't see that America is going to hell in a handbasket. There are fundamental problems with this country, as well as the world, that need to be solved before we can start crying over our tax brackets. Obama will solve those problems. McCain will make them worse.

This "everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps cause I did" and "this country was built on hard work not handouts" is a bit disingenuous. I think that everyone understands that if people don't choose to have children responsibly, we have leaky borders for immigrants, we don't educate properly, and we keep fostering a "global economy" that the masses of mediocre workers in industries that can be sourced elsewhere will have no way of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Plus, without a bit of government intervention after the Depression, this country would not be where it is today. Also, going to war is a very convenient way for a government to energize industry and economy without it looking like handouts.

I'm at the other end of Obama's donut hole. I don't want to pay more than my fair share (hello, flat tax!), and I don't want to be responsible for the poor choices and laziness of others. But, I also begrudgingly realize that I have to care about the welfare of my common man, because then I suffer too if he falters while I prosper.

Of course, we could just continue financing the tax cuts with the deficit. Then by the time we elect Bush VIII, we'll just have to raise taxes to 108% and lease out the Statue of Liberty to Gazprom, just so we can make the minimum payments on our debt.

11:39, I gave a citation. The November 15 debate in Nevada.

SEN. CLINTON: -- and then I think we have to have a bipartisan commission. I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle class families and seniors. (Applause.) If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.

But I want to say one final word about Medicare. Number one, Medicare should be able to negotiate for lower drug prices. (Applause.)

MR. BLITZER: All right. Thank you, Senator.

SEN. CLINTON: It was a travesty when the Bush administration did not allow that to happen, and I have a lot of other ideas about how we'll preserve and strengthen Medicare.

MR. BLITZER: All right. So Senator -- so you're not ready to accept that raising of the cap on that, but I know that Senator Obama wants to respond to you.

SEN. OBAMA: I will be very brief on this because, Hillary, I've heard you say this is a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class by adjusting the cap. Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 -- (cheers, applause) -- so 6 percent is not the middle class -- it's the upper class.

And you know, this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani -- (laughter, boos, cheers, applause) -- where we start playing with numbers -- we start playing with numbers in order to try to make a point. (Cheers, applause.) And we can't do that. No, no, no, no, no. This is -- this is -- this is too important. This is too important for us to pretend that we're using numbers like a trillion dollar tax cut instead of responsibly dealing with a problem that Judy asked for, and she said she wants a specific answer. And that's what I provided.

But understand, this is the top 6 percent, and that is not the middle class. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. BLITZER: Senator?

SEN. CLINTON: First of all -- first of all, I think that you meant a tax increase, because that's what it would be. But secondly, it is absolutely the case that there are people who would find that burdensome. I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors. I'm not talking -- I mean, you know, it's different parts of the country. So you have to look at this across the board, and the numbers are staggering.

"Obama has suggested imposing the 12.4 percent [social security] tax on all income above $97,000 per year" -- ABC News, 9/22/2007

Use Google, man. I'm completely right on this.

11:44 - Try this "logic" on for size - I'm a white guy, and know first hand that black people rob white people. According to your logic, all black people must rob white people. And, accordingly, all people who are not black must rob white people. That's f'n brilliant buddy, some pretty tight logic.

Just so we're clear, Obama has been deliberately vague on whether there would be a doughnut hole or not, leaving it as a "could include," never a "will include." Edwards originally proposed the doughnut hole idea, and when Obama suggested lifting the cap, Clinton laughed him off and noted that firefighters and teachers would be among those affected by lifting the cap. So he's mentioned both as options... but it's entirely unclear what he'd actually do.

This calculation is fair game, and the doughnut shills have hardly a leg to stand on. That said, it's an option he's kept open, so it's certainly plausible.

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/

11:44 - Try this "logic" on for size - I'm a white guy, and know first hand that black people rob white people. According to your logic, all black people must rob white people. And, accordingly, all people who are not black must not rob white people. That's f'n brilliant buddy, some pretty tight logic.

11:00 - Thank you for your service, but you're wrong. Everything I've read, and I was an Econ major, suggests that tax cuts, when dealing with the marginal rates at issue in the U.S., might increase the GDP (I've not seen any dramatic increase in the last 8 years though), but the increase is not nearly enough to pay for the tax cuts. In other words, tax cuts do not increase revenue, and I don't think that fact is very controversial among economists. Some still think tax cuts are wise and many think tax increases are economically unwise, but that's not the same as saying tax cuts increase revenue (dramatically or otherwise).

I have no problem paying higher taxes under an Obama administration if I'm comfortable that the money is being spent wisely. That does not make me a limousine liberal. I too come from a blue collar background. My parents worked hard to give me the opportunities I had, and I worked hard to take advantage of them. But I am not so self-centered to think that my sucess comes only from my talent and hard work. I was afforded opportunities, even though I do not come from money, that others do not have. We are along way from providing equal opportunities in this country and, if a progressive tax system can help neutralize some of those inequalities of opportunity, so be it.

Also, my brother is in the Air Force and has been deployed 3 times since 2004. My brother in law is in the Navy and has also been deployed to the Gulf. A highschool friend was an Army Ranger who was KIA in Afghanistan. Do I get to at least ask whether our presence in Iraq is the wisest course for our country and for Iraq? Or is it only those on active duty who get to question our nation's foreign policy?

11:40 says:
"forget the inconvenient little fact that tax revenues tend to be inversely related to the tax rate"

This is not a fact. It is, rather, a lie. There is a theory that at some point, increasing the tax rate will reduce tax revenues. But it's not a straight line. It's an upside-down U. It is called the Laffer curve. And we are currently on the left side of the upside-down U, meaning that increasing tax rates along the lines proposed by the dems will increase tax revenues.

11:41, if you don't know what "marginal tax rate" means, you shouldn't be participating in the conversation. A doughnut-hole would provide a lump sum tax break of a few thousand dollars, but BigLaw associates in New York would still be facing a huge tax increase, and 51%+ marginal tax rates.

1. Clearly Betsy Biglaw needs to get married, have a baby and own a house - deduction, deduction, deduction.

2. If all you "genious" NYC lawyers are JUST figuring out that a Dem would cost you more in taxes, why haven't you yet figured out that living/working in NYC costs you more in taxes with that NYC tax? When so many other cities don't charge a tax, on top of the state tax, but firms pay NY rates/bonii, why not move? If you'll change your vote for more of the same sh!tty government to save some green, why not move, too?

"the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%." yeah god forbid. paying 3% more of the last 30k you earn or whatever it is. f*ck you.

"Right now, you may notice, sometime during the summer or early fall, your take-home pay suddenly goes up because they stop deducting FICA." funny, I've never noticed that midsummer bump. guess I'm just not paying enough attention?

"If you’re willing to reject a law firm over a few thousand dollars, how much money would sway your presidential vote and campaign contributions?" this assumes that absolute income is what people are bitching about, rather than the stigma of being paid less than their peers. whatever. until someone's paying me $160k/year plus bonuses, I don't have a lot of time to feel sorry for these f*cks.

I have no strong opinion on this topic one way or the other.

Ted Frank - 11:39 here, this is from just below the cite you pulled from factcheck.org -

"Obama isn't necessarily endorsing taxation of all earnings. He's for raising the cap but hasn't specified how far. What he has endorsed, according to a fact sheet on his Web site, is "increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered," and he says he'd "work with Congress and the American people" on the details. Still, he has been more specific than Clinton, who will say only that she'll ask a bipartisan commission to come up with solutions after she's elected."

Does it hurt when people expose you for the partisan hack that you are? Is it frustrating to post things to a blog read by people who know how to feret out your BS? Don't you wish you could just sit back and craft BS with Michelle Malkin, Bill O', Ann C. and company without actually having to worry that people would expose you?

Ooooh, neat! A piece of total fiction! Thanks, ATL!

"I have no strong opinion on this topic one way or the other."

TITCR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU

Quick economics lesson for all of you

To the "Marine": Loving your country and wanting to protect it militarily and loving your country and wanting to help its citizens are not mutually exclusive. There are many liberals who genuinely support the troops (and many who are in the military). You'll never win an argument by taking such a radical position as you are. You should've learned that in your Ivy League institution. I'm a liberal: I have a father in the Army, an Uncle and a best friend.

You do realize that conservatives don't always have the troops best interest in mind though, right? Many deaths could've been prevented if Rummy had sent in the troops with adequate numbers and body armor that worked! Do you think he was up every night worrying about the troops when he made these decisions? Me thinks he had other things on his mind.

One other poster said the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves with our current tax scheme. I think they would be more inclined to roll around if they saw how our country has adopted a new King George and is now invading other countries for all the wrong reasons (and then joking about it--see President's Press Corp dinner from a few years back). Conservatives are funny. They say they believe in state's rights but they really don't. They want to increase the federal governments power to take away your civil liberties left and right. They say they don't believe in a one-world government, but they really do. They want the US to be that government.

11:55, Obama has offered several solutions, some intentionally vague. To seize upon the vagueness is not to be a "hack." It's to exploit a very weak argument. If Obama actually proposed a doughnut hole, he'd say so, rather than waffling. And if he had the presence of mind to come up with real calculations, he'd do it. But instead, he's trying to have the "message of hope" and the "substantive proposal" at the same time--and just because Frank's taking advantage of that says far more about Obama than Frank.

Let them eat cake.

Keep ignoring the doughnut hole on the SS cap, morons. Fact is people earning $200k+ SHOULD pay a little bit more. Unfortunately we are in the incredibly small minority of people with this high income stream which for many of us will only last 4-8 years, but them's the breaks. If your goal is to get rich, you should've went for an MBA, not JD.

Too bad - Obama, president of HLR, chose not to sell out like the rest of us so we shouldn't expect his pity.

Who and the f*ck is Ted Frank and why is he posting this on atl? If I wanted shoddy political postings, I'd go to the new york times.

11:55, Obama put the elimination of the cap on the table. If he wants to rule it out, he can flip-flop and join McCain and Clinton in saying "I oppose an elimination of the social security cap." He has refused to commit to the Edwards doughnut-hole idea. Until then, a cap elimination is on the table, it's a possibility to be considered, and I stand by my analysis. You can pretend that it's not a possibility if you'd like, but it doesn't make my analysis of how taxes would be affected if Obama eliminated the cap as he suggested wrong or BS or "hackish." So I'm not remotely hurt.

I defy any "doughnut" poster here to offer a single citation where the SS tax increase WILL include a doughnut hole. Every single reference to doughnut holes is qualified by "could." Go.

I've always wondered if the tolerance of biglaw lawyers for high taxes is to ease their guilt about not being big charitable givers.

What President is going to bring us more seed vaults in the Arctic???!!!

Shorter Ted Frank: If you are rich and want to get richer, vote for the party of the rich.

The rest of you are doing a good job of making it abundantly clear why no American who is NOT making six figures should vote Republican.

TF,

In your post, you wrote, "Obama plans to end" the cap. You didn't say, "he has not ruled out raising the cap," or "his plans to raise the cap may well eliminate the cap." Otherwise, your post would come off like silly speculation, which to be sure, it is.

To the extent you are seizing on his ambiguity. You should have said so more forthrightly.

Here is an article regarding the effects of raising the SS cap:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/socsec/issue-briefs/SSBrief9--Tax-Cap.htm

It is just a bad idea. It defers the bankruptcy of SS for some more years and encourages the wasteful spending of the government now.

Ted Frank is a TTT pirate at a TTT think tank full of pirates.

Frank's backtracking. His argument has now become, "What if Obama ended the cap?" Everyone knows Custer died at the battle of Little Big Horn. What this book presupposes is, what if he didn't?

You are all a bunch of pink wigs.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pink+wig

When SS was created, the average person would live off social security in retirement for like 5 years. Nowadays, the average person lives like 13 years.

And Obama has consistently said he opposes increasing the social security retirement age.

WHY I ASK YOU DO YOUNG PEOPLE NEED TO SUBSIDIZE BOOMERS' 15 YEARS OF RETIREMENT LIVING WHEN IT'S NOT EXACTLY A FRIGGIN SURPRISE THAT YOU WILL GET OLD AND RETIRE? SAVE YOUR OWN DAMN MONEY IF YOU WANT A DECADE OF COUNTRY CLUB LIVING!

12:13 - Tell me which candidate supports raising the retirement age and perhaps I'll vote for him / her. That may very well be a more sensible plan than the one Obama is considering but I don't see it being advanced by anyone. Its certainly not a reason to jump all over Obama for saying he would consider raising the cap as one potential solution to a problem most concede exists.

Obama has failed to rule out selling Texas to Mexico? Can someone please guest blog a crunching of the numbers on that hypo so we can get a feel of what kind of candidate Obama is likely to be?

Thanks.

I think Ted has adequately backed up his premise and conclusions. There may be room for debate but not for accusations of deception.

You cry "no journalistic integrity" only when the press (or a blogger) says something you don't like. But you are all too happy to smile, nod, and reposition your erection when the media feeds you the Barackstar pabalum. Life ain't no crystal stair, and politics is not a beauty pageant. Obama deserves your critical look now instead of your disenchantment in two years when he hasn't been able to fulfill all your wildests hopes and aspirations.

It's about time someone lifted the cap on the Social Security tax. We make more money than the vast majority of the population. Is it really unfair that we contribute more to social services to help those less fortunate?

Why SHOULD someone earning over 200K pay more taxes? What is the philosophical underpinning of that - i have so you should have too?
thats bullshit. talk yourself into this all you want with holier than thou man of the people nonsense. I am under no philosophical/moral/whatever obligation to give the money I earned to anyone else. f your bleeding heart.

[Reported by Abovethelaw Readers as Possibly Innacurate]

12:19. Definite hippie.

Look people, as I have said before, Obama is a SOCIALIST (so is Billary). If either Obama or Clinton is elected President, he/she will kill the economy.

Obama hates America and everything it stands for.

[Reported by Abovethelaw Readers as Possibly Inaccurate]

How is it that this grossly inaccurate post (about Obama's "plan" to do something he has not announced any plan to do, and which would require congressional action, and which in fact conflicts with his stated advocacy for a mere "increase" in the cap) has not been corrected?

This is really egregious. It should have been edited and corrected as soon as the first poster pointed out the obvious error.

Republicans spend and spend and spend while Democrats tax and spend. It's just like me and my wife's relationship. We hate each other yet we deserve one another.

Low taxes are great, but to do that we have to cut spending/have a surplus if we don't want absurd deficits. Unfortunately, the fact that we blew billions of dollars on a war will make that challenging in the years to come...

Low taxes are great, but to do that we have to cut spending/have a surplus if we don't want absurd deficits. Unfortunately, the fact that we blew billions of dollars on a war will make that challenging in the years to come.

Remember the good old days when the presidential debates were about how to spend our surplus? And Gore had this idea of using it to fix Social Security? Sigh.

we should be able to opt out of Social Security.

no taxes, no benefits.

“Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap.”
Ted Frank at 10:20 a.m.

“[A] cap elimination is on the table, it's a possibility to be considered…”
Ted Frank at 12:03 p.m.

ATL is going to lose readership if it engages in blatant partisanship in the future. That's not why anyone is coming here.

Putting aside the analysis, look at Frank's comment at at 12:03 - "he can flip-flop." I think using this infamous GOP attack line on Obama goes beyond considered and thoughtful analysis.

Like others have said, stick to legal gossip.

OH MY GOD - RICH PEOPLE WILL BE SLIGHTLY LESS RICH THATS IT IM VOTING FOR STEVE FORBES

I bet more than a few biglaw attorneys would prefer a tax system that eliminates income taxes and instead taxes net worth. Most junior associates would pay nothing in taxes.

This type of tax system would, of course, encourage rampant spending, though. Saving of all types would be discouraged, as would ownership of anything.

For all those complaining about "handouts" to those in need, I just want to ask which party controlled the presidency and congress when the largest entitlement program since Social Security was passed? Bush and his compassionate conservatives passed Medicare part D ladies and gents, so don't lecture on the "lefties'" propensity to pass entitlement programs, just look to Part D.

12:20: It's called the decreasing marginal utility of a dollar. Look into it.

12:29, you have a literacy problem. Ending the cap is one thing (e.g., cap could be move elsewhere); eliminating the cap is another. Obama has certainly supported ending the cap as it currently exists. The only debate is whether it would be reinstated at a higher level or whether it would be entirely eliminated.

I LOVE REPUBLICANS. More money in my pocket means *I* can choose where that money goes -- retirement, savings, house, investment, charity, small business. Power to the people! Give it to the feds and only a small portion will ever end up being spent on what you could have just written a $34K check to directly. This is so obvious.

11:31 says, "11:23 - what's the matter? did the truth hurt your little feelings? awwwww, boo f-ing hoo. but go ahead and "support the troops" by demeaning their injuries and attempting to quell their voice. that's the liberal way."

If you continue to take comments on this board so incredibly seriously, you risk bursting a blood vessel. Calm down, little bobcat. Wow.

i certaintly don't feel like a fat cat who has ever exploited anyone. the only thing i ever did to get to where i am is make good grades in school. thus, i resent the class warfare rhetoric of the Democrats.

Always nice to see information about how these policies impact me. Thanks.

HOLY SHIT. you mean seriously, a candidate who says they'll return the tax rate on the wealthy (breaking: if you're at biglaw, you're wealthy) to the Clinton-era rate means that your taxes will go up? How could you EVER have predicted that?

Protip: if you're making a ton of money, stop your fucking whining about your tax rate.

12:40: Your first sentence might be the dumbest premise I've ever read. Nice.

11:48 must have majored in econ at a TTT and has no clue about political science.

1. Decreased tax rates lead to increased government revenues in the long run.

2. Your incorrect statement about paying for the tax cut assumes that the money belongs to the government. Like government power, money comes from the governed.

3. What evidence is there that government can spend money wisely? Leaving the philosophical issue aside for a moment, government spends money less efficiently than people.

4. Democrats often talk of wage stagnation. That's due to health care costs -- people want cutting edge medical care without paying the cost. Gee, I'd like a bigger house, but wishing doesn't make it a market reality.

5. This is my favorite question for liberals: What is the absolute highest percentage of income a person should pay? Once you get over 50%, you're definitely socialist.

12:19

Higher wage earners do contribute more to social services to help the less fortunate. They also consume less in social services.

Raising the social security wage cap is a bit of a backdoor action. Republicans are only okay with a bit of backdoor action in airport restrooms. This is clearly not an airport restroom type issue. If a candidate wants to do more than simply allow the Bush cuts to expire to raise the marginal rates on higher wage earners, this should be done openly and forthrightly. This will be a major tax increase. If we were simply making contributions proportinate to our expected withdrawls, the social security cap on wages would already be a lot lower. The point is not that higher earners should pitch in and give back some, but how much pitching in and giving back is appropriate.

12:46: if you haven't heard from the Dems a thousand times already, there is apparently a war on the middle class being waged by corporations and rich people.

All the Dems are populist idiots. They are even trying to one-up each other in terms of who hates NAFTA more!

12:48: Our country was socialist between 1917-1922 and 1933-1986? Interesting.

You're a moron.

12:48: Here's a question for you: If we're waging an incredibly expensive war, should the rate stay below 50 percent even if we can't pay for the war?

Ted,

Instead of referencing some comments from Nov., why don't you look at what Obama said YESTERDAY:

During the forum, Obama referenced a “doughnut hole” where people would not start paying the payroll tax until their incomes reached $200,000 or $250,000.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/25/obama.html

economic freedom vs. gdp:

http://www.progressdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/index.gif

Who is Ted Frank and why is Lat letting him use this website for political propaganda?

"11:02 & 11:22 - Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you and your financial troubles. You just have no sense of what it is really like to struggle financially. And I'm not talking about your oh so crushing student loans. Give me a f*cking break."

[1] Your second sentence is simply false; I call spending a good portion of my childhood in a condemed trailer with one parent "struggling financially." I'd also lump into that term working 80 hour weeks at shitty summer jobs to pay for college, while living in said shithole.

[2] Last I checked, the fact that someone isn't miserable (financially) isn't a justification for taking away what they're working 18 hour days to earn. Otherwise, we'd best begin by confiscating 90% of the wealth owned by such people as Paris Hilton, Bill Gates, etc.

Not sure how I can be the first to say this....But 10K to charity? Really? That doesn't seem very realistic to me.

11:48 - your posts get increasingly dumber (if that's possible). but heck, if you were smarter you wouldn't be liberal.

1:11 - It's your logic buddy, not mine.

why do all gay men support Hilary? serious question.

And don't forget Obama's plan for indentured servitude for young people (i.e., his national service plan) and inability to grasp the concept of basic economics (i.e., huge proposed spending increases without finding ways to pay for it -- oh wait, didn't we just have 8 years of that fiscal responsibility that everyone in the country seems to bitch about)!

probably said before, but the federal gov't has been living beyond its means for sometime now (budget deficits), eventually we have to pay for it, we can do it now, or we can keep putting it off.

The real question is spending, and I'll bet that without Iraq, spending will actually go down under a democrat.

I'm not saying removing the SS cap is the right way to make up for our past transgressions, professional class will bear more of the burden than super rich and will only create more of an incentive to move income to capital gains. But that should be the debate, how we are going to pay for everything we've spent and promised, higher taxes or cuts to government services, and if higher taxes, what kind.

How do the numbers break down for Hillary?

I'm liberal, but I am seriously sick of this crap. I paid my own way through school and have the debt to prove it. Not all of us biglawyers are rolling in money -- some of us need this paycheck to pay the loans for the education we couldn't otherwise afford.

We aren't allowed to deduct our student loan interest and now we're going to have to pay $30K more to bail out SS which won't even be around for us in our later years? I don't think so.

Gen X for Hillary!

Explain to me why anyone would vote for a candidate who wants to take money out of their pocket...No one has ever come up with a satisfactory answer to this...My guess is years of brainwashing from subsidiaries of the teachers' unions...

1:14 - no, it's your inability to understand logic, even when it's staring you in the face. if you think i'm going to respond to your straw man analogy then you're mistaken. i'm not a stupid liberal like you.

OBAMA BIN LADEN SUCKS!!

I agree with this:

"However, considering that the SS shortfall is the result of people retiring in the next 20 years not gathering the strength to fix it themselves, a better fix would be to adjust SS payments accordingly to the inflation rate annually, rather than at a rate faster than inflation, and to raise the age of retirement until at least 70. I'm sick and tired of all these old people draining young people of their future because they refused to fix it themselves, and face a little hardship, when they first learned of the problem."

Brilliant plan Obama. I cant wait to see you try to push that piece of s**t idea through Congress. Maybe you can just Hope it through.

Also, it's about time someone starts to think about tying tax rates to cost of living. If Obama gets this through I will definitely be relocating to Texas.

1:26 pm - nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to go to expensive schools. I worked my rear off and took a 1/2 scholarship to a second tier lawschool, where I maxed out my fed loans, shunned private loans, worked ALL THROUGH LAW SCHOOL (sorry APA), and lived VERY frugally, rather than take private loans to attend a better school. I am benefitting from my wise decisions, sorry that you are unable to do the same.

"Too bad - Obama, president of HLR, chose not to sell out like the rest of us so we shouldn't expect his pity."

As I recall, his wife was at Sidley Austin doing the selling out.

I wonder how many overpaid media elite will figure out that they get dinged too?????

Democrats suck.

Say what you will about George W. Bush, the last eight years have been great for lawyers.

Face it limo liberals have made obama the flavor of the month and he has been popular in cacuses and closed primaries. if the dems nominate him it will be smooth sailing for johnny boy once the independents are allowed to vote. has anyone seen recently what the population in the US looks like outside of nyc and la?

I love this legal gossip site. But let's keep it that...a legal gossip site. If I want analysis on the candidates and arguments in the comments I'll go to any of the huge number of news sources that offer just that. But if ATL starts pushing a partisan political agenda (whatever that agenda is), I will take my readership elsewhere, thanks very much.

1:28 - you're the one with the ridiculous logic. You're a marine, and thus know first hand how liberals don't support the troops. What's your evidence? The fact that ivy league schools didn't let recruiters on campus? I'm pretty sure that the main reason they don't want military recruiters on campus is because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, although I'm sure some don't want them on because of their opposition to this war or any war period. However way you slice the salami, I don't see how it supports your position that liberals don't support the troops. Second, you cited the fact that you see how liberals look down on you. I'm not going to argue that they don't. But do they look down on you because you're in the military, or because you're a douchbag? I'm leaning towards the latter, but even assuming it's the former, that still doesn't mean all liberals don't support the troops.

And I think you're everything that's wrong with this country not because you're in the military, but rather because instead of supporting your views with facts, arguments, or even a valid opinion, you resort to spewing insults and denigrating those that disagree with you.

Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea is really irrelevant.

Its immoral to take property from one person and give it to another person--even if its done through the government.

This is why Obama's idea is horrible. Its wrong to take money from people who earned to give to people who didn't.

America is the land of opportunity and property rights. The productive members of soceity should be rewarded--not the unproductive.

Remember that when you are working at 10:00 tonight and others have been home 5 hours earlier.

Here's an idea. How about we change the grading in college and law school such that we shave off 10% of the grade of the smartest students and add it to the score of the least intelligent students in the class. By following this plan, more intellectually disadvantaged students will have a better chance of getting good jobs since their GPAs will be higher. After all, why should the best jobs just go to the smartest students?

"[H]as anyone seen recently what the population in the US looks like outside of nyc and la?"

Ah, yes - they look like this www.mulletsgalore.com

If we're going to raise the SS cap, can we at least eliminate the income phaseout for deduction of student loan interest?

kthxbye

This is horrible. How am I supposed to live on ONLY $163K a year? I may as well be pissing in a bucket and living under a bridge.

Seriously people... get a grip. And some perspective.

It's interesting to see all of the Obama supporters quoting things he is "putting on the table" and attacking Ted Frank for examining fuzzy ideas that potentially include huge (undisclosed) tax increases. The biggest criticism of Obama is that he offers up all of these fluffy ideas, but never specifies the details.

In another life I was an actuarialist for OASDI, the org that runs the funding and authors the trustee's report for SS.

Unfortunately, eliminating the tax cap will do absolutely nothing to fix funding gap in SS. People are dreaming if they think the program is solvent for 30-40 years.

In 8 years the SS program will start costing a hell of a lot more (in the multibillions) that FICA taxes take in.

At that point, we'll need to double FICA just to cover the short fall.

By 2025, you'll need to Triple FICA to keep it going.

Theoretically, we have this huge trust fund full of a trillion dollars, but that money has already been spent. We have zero dollars saved, and we have no plans to really save any of the surplus over the next 8 years.

Lifting the SS tax cap would be smart, IF AND ONLY IF, all of the extra surplus was put into the bank, equity markets, corporate debt, or foreign government debt. Then we would have something to draw on when we need it, and cushion the blow.

But that hasn't been done. Every year the surplus is loaned to the federal government, which spends it and gives the SS department an IOU for the money spent. The trust fund is nothing more than $1 trillion of IOUs. But if SS tries to redeem those IOUs, we'll find there is no money on hand. The only way the Federal government can make good on it is to raise income taxes or cut benefits. That's it, it's that simple.

I'm not a fan of privatization policies, but I don't know any economists not worth his/her salt that does not agree that Amex should at least privatize the surplus. If Obama did that now, we would have 8-9 years to build a real trust fund, which would cushion the blow.

Obama might have the balls to do it. McCain would like to, but it's tough for a republican to do that.

That the problem with the eliminanting the cap on SS.

time for the fair tax!!!!

True dat "MulletMan", like those fine folks would ever vote for obama?!?!?!?

I have no strong opinion on this topic one way or the other.

Ted Frank, you ignorant slut. If you're going to post this crap, at least do it accurately -- there will NOT be any SSI tax increase on income between 100k and 200k. That will change these projections a lot.

Also, if you were looking at a married associate, the marginal income tax rate change would not nearly be as stark. What's the breakdown on 5th yrs married vs. single?

I enjoy ATL but every now and then you guys feel compelled to burnish your right-wing credentials....

Also, were it not for DADT, I'd love to send each of you over to Iraq and then hear you bitch about your marginal tax rates...

This shouldn't surprise us as Obama thinks that everyone making $75k or more is rich and needs to pay a lot more in taxes.

Lat,

If you Google the net, Obama has talked around the idea of leaving the cap in place at $100K, and then lifting it for any income over $250K or $280K. He's never committed to it, but it seems his policy wouldn't have a huge impact on associates. But it would definitely be a kick in the pants to partners.

You should redo the chart, and only apply the tax cap to the Bonuses.

its wrong to burnish "right wing credentials"? so if they were left wing credentials, they would be fine. fascist.

Hey Howard C. Apparently you can afford to spare some of your income so if I give you my address will you send me a check?

I just love when folks talk about how others need to get some "perspective" when it comes to paying taxes. Here's a thought. You know that money I earn? It's mine! If somebody else thinks they have more right to it than I do, then they had better have a pretty damn good explanation.

"...IRS still accepts checks and money orders..."

W 2008 State of the Union

This is my favorite assertion ever: "Its immoral to take property from one person and give it to another person--even if its done through the government."

Ooooohhh!!!!! It's IMMORAL! Who said that, Jesus, Kant, or JSM?

Oh, sorry, 1:34, I forgot that I didn't deserve an Ivy League education because I didn't come from a family with money. I forgot that I didn't deserve to avail myself of the best education -- no matter what I may have achieved -- just because I wasn't born into a blue blood family. I will remember my place from now on.

Look, that's great that you went to a T2 school for college and law school and came out with a good job. But don't judge me for picking to go to T1 schools and being willing to work hard to pay off my student loans. We were both in the same boat -- no money -- and shouldn't be judging one another's choices regarding our educations and lifestyles.

Ps. My choice of school wasn't based on how I could have the highest net worth. If it were, I agree that your path was the way to go.

When you criticize the mission as being wrongfully undertaken or failing (despite your lack of actual knowledge on the subject), when you are politically invested in defeat, when you offer Presidential candidates who compete to see who will haul ass out of Iraq faster, when you focus more attention on the (relatively few) misdeeds of our troops instead of the daily atrocities committed by our enemies, when you do any and all of these things, you provide aid, comfort, and assistance to the enemy.

You can cloak it in patriotism if you want to, but you aren't doing our troops any favors.

THIS IS GARBAGE.

HALF-BAKED NEO-CON THINK TANK GARBAGE.

1:26 - then don't hide behind your loans now - "some of us need this paycheck to pay the loans for the education we couldn't otherwise afford" - my point is that I took an education I could afford and made the best with it, now I have manageable loans. Too many people take on huge lawschool loans, then gripe about what they have to do to pay them back. If you make your bed, you have to lay in it.

Ted - John McCain said he wants the war in Iraq to continue for 100 years - what exactly will be the effect of that on my taxes? We are already looking at around 2.6 trillion right? So, what 200 trillion or something? Can you plz make me a chart showing how my family will pay for it? Thx.

Oh wait, he didn't REALLY mean that? OK, I see, so we are not making redculous hyperbolic assumptions based on off the cuff campaign stump speeches? Oh, but wait....

"If you make your bed, you have to lay in it."

That assumes one will still be able to afford a bed after the Obama tax increases.

I'm pretty sure you can pay more in taxes if you want to. If you are concerned about helping people go ahead and do it, you don't need to wait for the government to mandate it. It is called charitable giving, and conservatives far outgive their caring liberal counterparts, despite making less money.

See, e.g.,
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323

Liberals sure are generous with money that does not belong to them.

I shake my head when Democrats tie their concerns about federal spending and passing on huge debt to the next generation with the billions spent on Bush's war in Iraq. Whether you support the Iraq war or not, the cost of the war is insignificant compared with SS and entitlement spending. Raising taxes to give more people a government check or keep SS solvent a few more years isn't a solution, its kicking a can down the street.

One of the founding fathers said when the electorate figures out they can raid the treasury with their vote.....democracy doesn't work. About 50% of the US voting population is getting a govt check...tipping point?

Bottom line, entitlement spending is growing at an unsustainable pace and is THE problem with federal spending. Misguided or not, Bush had the stones to attack the SS problem. The D's won't agree to any solution that involves the government taking in less money or giving up any power. The tax burden in this country only continues to go up raising the barriers to new business and job creation.

Dems out there, don't accuse me of being insensitive to those needing social programs. We need them. But the success of these programs shouldn't be measured by how many people benefit from their assistance, but how many are able to get off the assistance. Just as Dem's say its immoral not to assist the least among us, its not moral to entice people into lives of dependence and unrealized potential......while passing on debts and an economic environment with less opportunity to the next generation.

Can everyone note the comment at 10:47am, about a fifth of the way down the page? It's the ONLY guy who correctly notes that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2010, and a Democrat Congress will have to reenact them before McCain has any say in the matter. Prediction: not gonna happen.

So, the only real difference here is the SS issue. Which probably won't happen in any event, and if there's a donut hole from $100k-$200k or $100k-$250k then the effect of cap removal will be pretty minimal for associates anyway.

Not to mention: putting aside the issue of how it will affect your bottom line, can anyone give me a decent answer as to why, from the outset, we ever designed a system where we stop siphoning SS money over $102k? I mean I understand how it happened as a political reality, but from a logical standpoint it just seems stupid. Why not remove the cap but lower the rate, thus keeping total withholding at the same level? That would be better for associates AND firefighters and teachers.

If Obama gets elected, maybe more attorneys with dreams of working in the nonprofit or government sectors will be inspired to go ahead and do it, since big paychecks would be taxed to death anyway. By voluntarily taking a lower paycheck during an Obama administration, an attorney can take advantage of whatever handouts the Dems have planned for low-paycheckers, all the while working less, taking care of their health, seeing their loved ones, deferring or seeking forgiveness of student loans, etc. When Republicans are back in power, go back to the big paycheck. It's a perfect plan. (Works in DC, anyway, where attorneys cycle in and out of government, firms, non-profits, etc.)

You all have it wrong. The legal profession has a solution to this problem. More ridiculous lawsuits that will end up picking everbodies pocket.

The real hit in lawyerly pockets will come when Obama socializes medicine and bans malpractice suits.

Quit your crying. In case you haven't heard, the country's broke. The only way to get out of the hole is to raise taxes and cut spending.

This is Off says, "You should redo the chart, and only apply the tax cap to the Bonuses."

You do realize that Lat didn't make the chart, right? That the whole article comes from elsewhere, right?

If this were to go through, even the Dems could not maintain the fiction that Social Security is not just another general revenue tax. The tissue thin fiction that it is a retirement scheme will be torn assunber, since high earners will be paying huge orders of magnitute more and receiving the same (or less when someone brings in means-testing in 20 years). It's just another tax folks, and this is a HUGE tax increase proposal.

2:08,

"Plz"? "Thx"? Seriously? Are you a thirteen year old girl? You'll be taken more seriously if you take the extra 0.8 seconds and make the extra three keystrokes. On second thought, you should really not be entitled to have an opinion until then. Good luck.

2:00: I hope you stand by all future commanders in chief the way you stand by our existing one. You wouldn't want to provide aid and comfort to our enemies, now would you?

I *am* laying in the bed that I made -- I took a BigLaw job (rather than one for the government, which has long been my goal) and am paying off my loans as fast as I am able. (And yes, am living frugally, pack my lunches, don't own a car, and rent a tiny apartment, etc., so don't go there.)

A $30K tax hit isn't going to mean I can't buy a plasma tv, it means I'll be 2 years further behind in paying off my loans (which, thanks to the usurious interest rates of private loans, increase each year). That's two more years in biglaw instead of as a DA/AUSA/whatever.

I'm not hiding behind my loans. All I'm saying is that not all of us who work biglaw are rich or living a luxurious life. Obama and others may want to think carefully before painting us all with the same brush; his plan may mean that poor students are less likely to attend Columbia or Harvard Law without a future biglaw salary to help pay the debt off.

(That law school tuition rates are cash cow money makers for the rest of the university is a huge problem; schools shouldn't be gauging their students like this; the end result is that many of us go into the private economy rather than public interest work, which is hardly the result that someone like Obama would seem to desire . . . . This, however, may be a conversation for another day.)

"Seriously people... get a grip. And some perspective."

I'd be happy to do so. Just go ahead and give me back 53% of the time I spent working and stressing to earn that money.

12:48 - Maybe it was a TTT, but here goes:

1) That can't be right. For example, a decrease in the tax rate from 5 % to 0% could not possibly increase revenue whether in the short or long term. 0 % of a much higher number, my TTT math tells me, is still 0. The same is of course true at the other extreme -- a tax rate of 100 % would lead to 0 revenue. So I stand by my original statement, that tax cuts, at the current marginal rates in the U.S., would decrease revenue. Its my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Bush tax cuts did in fact decrease revenue. Whether or not tax cuts are still a good policy even where they decrease revenue is a matter up for debate. I was just responding to the statement that the Bush tax cuts resulted in dramatically increased tax revenue. I believe that to be demonstrably false.

2. My reference to tax cuts that "pay for themselves" was nothing more than use of a phrase commonly used in discussions of tax policy. Its nothing more than a restatement of the point above, tax cuts, at our marginal rates, decrease revenue. If you prefer "revenue neutral", that's fine too.

3. Of course you can't be sure government will spend wisely. That's why you vote for people who you think will make the best use of tax dollars. Also, I'm not so sure I agree that people or corporations for that matter always spend money wisely.

4. You're probably right that rising health care costs are one of the causes of wage stagnation. That does not mean that wage stagnation is not a problem. It probably does mean that more needs to be done to deal with rising health care costs.

5. I suppose the answer depends on whether we're talking about the marginal rate or the effective rate. Either way, I'm not sure what the highest rate should be. But as someone in the highest tax bracket, I don't think we're there yet.

"2:09 - Liberals sure are generous with money that does not belong to them."

Amen!

"Seriously people... get a grip. And some perspective."

I'd be happy to do so. Just go ahead and give me back 53% of the time I spent working and stressing to earn that money. It's not like we're making our $240k by doing 9-5 M-F.

2:12- Social Security was designed to be a savings plan for people who weren't responsible enough to save for themselves. It was supposed to be a supplement to retirement, not something that people exclusively rely upon. It wasn't supposed to be a tax on people forcing them to pay into a system where their benefits are capped, and they could do much better without the government's paltry rate of return.

What you are talking about is just another form of income redistribution, which in reality, is what Social Security is at this point anyway.

2:09 - see http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html

considering liberals are less likely to attend church regularly, and thus less likely to pay a tithe (which counts as a charitable contribution), I find any statistics that state conservatives are more likely to make a charitable contribution incomplete at best; outrageous at the worst.

Regarding marginal rates,have any of you noticed that Ireland,which use to be the sad sack step-sister of Europe, has the highest rate of economic growth now. What happened? How about slashing tax rates. Iceland has just recently followed that model and is experiencing similar results. If we are heading into a recession, raising tax rates of any type seems like a great idea. Any studies done on the change in the rate of unemployment when taxes are increased?

holdfast: What are you talking about? It's a retirement scheme, it's just a nearly bankrupt retirement scheme. How do you save it from bankruptcy? You add more funds. Where do you get those funds? From those who can pay.

Your argument, to the extent there is one, makes no sense.

2:21- it is a supplement to retirement. You can always raise the benefit age, which makes a lot of sense, considering people are living longer than they were 20 years ago.

2:09 - see http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html

considering liberals are less likely to attend church regularly, and thus less likely to pay a tithe (which counts as a charitable contribution), I find any statistics that state conservatives are more likely to make a charitable contribution incomplete at best; outrageous at the worst.

I am one of the principals in my law firm and have to deal with the dollar and cents issues daily. If the employer's contribution of the FICA is raised as the cap is raised I am going to have to look closely at cutting my costs,the largest of which is employee compensation. The largest component of that is lawyer compensation. Maybe we can get by with one or more less lawyers. How about your firm?

moderately intelligent person,

I'll take issue with your description of several thousand dollars as "pretty minimal." A few hundred I will grant you, but anytime anyone expects me to fork over a four figure sum I consider that more than minimal.

Either way, this chart, and article, has served it's purpose. TAXES WILL BE HIGHER, it's only a matter of by how much, IF OBAMA CAN EVER GET THE BALLS TO STICK TO A POSITION. All this google-battling is retarded, and only proves that NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE HELL OBAMA WILL DO.

John McCain wants to keep us in Iraq FOR 100 YEARS!

Raise the benefit age or privatize accounts, only way to go.

I support the war, but I don't support the troops.

1. Raise the benefit age. Those who can't work can file for disability. Those who don't want to work can retire on their own dime.

2. The baby boomers should let go of the idea that SS will cover all costs. It is meant as a supplement to retirement, not as a means to cover all bills.

3. Figure out a way to protect the contributions of today's working professionals. At this rate, Gens XX and YY will hardly be able to care for themselves, let alone afford to have children -- they'll be too busy trying to pay for the older generations.

2:28- You are an idiot. We still have troops in Germany and Japan. Do you honestly think we won't have troops in the Middle East for the next century? If McCain said he wanted to keep 150k troops in Iraq for the next 100 years, maybe you would have something to get worked up about.

re: 2:28

Seriously. I've never understood why more people aren't outraged by the fact that they could probably get a better rate of return by tossing their money into an ING savings account.

The Senate is our last line of defense. Everyone please get out and vote for your conservative Senate candidate.

re: 2:33

LOL dead on anyone around here under 40 counting on SS being there when we retire?

2:23: Read my post again in context. I never said it was not a supplement for retirement, or anything about retirement age. "A retirement scheme" does not preclude it only being a supplement to retirement. Based on the post I was responding to, there was no reason for me to indicate that it was only a supplement. I didn't say whatever you thought I said.

google "ron paul"

I understood your post perfectly fine. I was just pointing out that since it is a supplement, breaking the bank to keep it exactly as is doesn't make much sense, especially when there are better options.

2:21- PS- I like that you called it a "scheme". You might be the only honest income redistributor on this site.

1:39 - again, your straw man arguments may work at your metrosexual cocktail parties but not with me. there's a reason why 80+% of the military voted republican in the last election, and it's not because their feelings are as vulnerable to getting hurt as yours.

and i don't call people names because they disagree with me, i just call them how i see them. lenin called western liberals "useful idiots," and i'm sure ahmadinejad says the same. personally, i saw/see the best arguments that liberals have to offer (at my ivy league law school and currently in my new york law firm) and am offended at their degree of idiocy. you are a liberal, which in and of itself renders you an illogical, weak, emotional assclown. it's not because you disagree with me, it's because that's who you are. you aid and abet the enemy, and therefore deserve nothing less than my fury.

why is the gov't writing checks to people who are perfectly capable of paying for their own retirement? The solution for social security is a gradual phaseout of the plan for most people, except for the handicapped and others who are incapable of supporting themselves. If you are 50 yrs old, you should get a 20% haircut on your annual benefit. You have 15 yrs to save up the difference. If you are 40, you should get a 50% cut. For those who are 30 and younger, it should be understood that there will be no social security benefit. Under no circumstances should we pour a higher percentage of workers' income into this colossal failure of a pension scheme

The gov. can take 100 percent of the money I have put into Social Security if I could opt out right now. I'm not holding my breath.

2:23: The only problem is, the people who depend on it most probably aren't in a position to treat it as a supplement.

Social security was designed as an insurance policy for the few who actually lived beyond the point that they were able to work, not as a 20 year paid vacation on the backs of those who are actually producing for society. Life expectancy in the US in 1935 was only 61.7 years. People weren't expected to be around to collect. Today it is over 77 years and people can expect to collect for a long time.

Social security is also disproportionately unfair to minorities who have a much shorter life expectancy and therefore are not around to collect social security. If they were able to save the money in their own accounts they could pass the accumulated wealth down to future generations and give them a chance to escape the cycle of poverty that liberal policy puts them in.

2:54- This is a debate with emotional liberals. Your factual arguments have no place here.

the reason the gov't is not willing to phase out soc security, despite its obvious looming failure and propensity to crush our economy, is because politicians want as many voters as possible suckling on the gov't tit.

FAIR TAX NOW!

*AUDACIOUSLY HOPES FOR CHANGE*

Jesus Mary and Joseph!!! The democratic party needs to get reasonable about taxes. Most of us are socially liberal, so we like Dems for that reason.

But that social liberalism isn't worth tens of thousands extra a year!!!

I'm gay, and thought I'd never vote republican again. But McCain just got my vote.

Good lord dems, be reasonable!!!!!!

Hillary said in an oct or nov debate, and throughout the campaign, that she opposes Obama's proposal to remove the tax cap.

I liked Hillary when she was running towards the center.

Why oh why did the dems have to buy into Obama's rhetoric. I'm gay, and I have to vote for a republican now because the democrats haven't left me with any reasonable option.

Don't look to old man McCain to do anything about this either.

I would have hoped that Obama, the young candidate, would see things from the perspective of our generation. Sadly its the same old pandering to the AARP.

Okay, if raising the cap/increasing taxes is off the table, what's the viable solution? I see a lot of bitching but not much problem solving here.

2:47 - "Emotional assclown"? You're the one getting all worked up because you cannot put together an argument that doesn't result in you calling somebody an idiot or some other version of the term. I simply challenged your opinion that all liberals are idiots and weak. Your response? I'm just a liberal that is idiot and illogical. Great argument. If that's your only response (and don't tell me I'm aiding the "enemy" because I disagree with the execution of the war), I definitely feel sorry for your firm and your clients, because that sort of reasoning is just sad.

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Vote McCain. Rep pres with Dem Congress = gridlock. Better off if they have their hands tied.

My effective rate goes from 42.7 to 51.7%!!! There is something wrong when the government wants more of your income than you. I was leaning towards Obama, but if these rates are true, I cannot support him. That and I think he wants to increase capital gains to 28%, which during a recession seems like economic craziness!

I hope those numbers are not right. I probably would support him as long as the effective rate never went over 50%. There is just something so fundamentally wrong with that. It's not the money so much as the principle (wacky as that sounds).

such a reasonable thinker, s/he is.

Howard C - Its not about whether a particular salary is enough to live on. By that standard, the government should tax all income above $40k at 100%. After all, we can all LIVE on $40k.

Its about incentives. Working for biglaw sucks. In fact, gaining the credentials and working the hours necessary to hold any $250k+/yr job sucks. But the money makes the hard work worth it for many people.

But what happens when you take away that money? What happens when you tell the I-Bankers and biglaw associates and big 4 accountants and attending physicians that the government is going to take more than 50% of their salaries - that they are, in effect, working half the year for free?

And what happens when these highly educated, highly credentialed people have other options? All top professionals can trade in their high-paying jobs for cushy, easy work that pays enough to LIVE. Most of us choose not to because we like the paychecks we get, but when that paycheck gets cut by tax increases, then the pay difference is no longer such a big factor.

So what happens when you implement these huge tax increases? Highly credentialed people drop down and take lower-paying but easier jobs. And GDP suffers.

3:12 - liberals are idiots and weak. that's just a fact. because you're a liberal, and thus an idiot, you are incapable of comprehending an argument with merit. i, therefore, won't waste my time. i've been dealing with emotional assclowns like you for long enough to know that there is no reasonable debate with you. if you were capable of reason, you'd be a republican.

Even if Obama is president, I will be able to buy a BMW, despite having loans of $170k!

"raising taxes slows economic growth you imbeciles."

I suppose that's why the economies of the 40's 50's and 60's expanded faster than any economy before or since - and the top marginal rate was 70%

3:11 Here's a start on solutions -

1) Means test for SS benefits. Phase out starting at net worth > $5M

2) Continue to raise retirement age commensurate with increases in life expetancy

3) Phase in a growing % of SS taxes to retirement accounts for younger workers to eliminate unfunded future retirement obligations

I am a conservative mopstly and so I support what the conservatives stand for: smaller govt; no war; balanced budget...you know, the sort of thing we got when we voted GOP twice in a row.

My gas prices are now lower; housing values way up; inflation gone; jobs fine for America; immigration issues settled...that is why I will vote GOP once again.

Assocaites. Guess what? You are the new middle class. Get used to it. You are an employee that gets a W2. You get one tax write-off--a mortgage. You are going to get taxed so hard that you will never be able to join the upper-middle class, unless if you don't live on the left or east coasts. Sorry. Your only way out is to make partner, or quit law and start a business. Sorry.

Associates. Guess what? You are the new middle class. Get used to it. You are an employee that gets a W2. You get one tax write-off--a mortgage. You are going to get taxed so hard that you will never be able to join the upper-middle class, unless if you don't live on the left or east coasts.

Sorry. Your only way out is to make partner, or quit law and start a business.

Paul B- Assuming you are correct, you still have no idea what kind of drag high marginal rates actually were. Your argument fails.

Can anyone justify the marriage penalty? I'd like to hear a serious defense of it.

Why should me and my girlfriend, who live together and co-own our house, pay more in taxes if we get married than we do now?

And to the religious fundies out there - aren't you a little bit concerned that the marriage penalty encourages people like me and my girlfriend to live in sin rather than tie the knot? And don't you all go blaming the dems - Bush may have reduced the marriage penalty, but he didn't eliminate it. I thought Bush wanted to protect marriage! (I guess he's ok with changing the Constitution to "protect" marriage, but heaven forbid he should mess with the tax code!)

What's your argument? It seems to be that liberals are idiots and weak. That's an opinion buddy, incapable of being supported with an "argument with merit". I'm pretty sure you're the on who is all emotional, and to quote a certain NY rapper ( who supports Hillary) "you remind me of a b!t¢h."

I'm done. Good luck with life, and I sincerely hope one day you don't generalize everybody black and white in an issue that is clearly grey.

For lawyers, you're all incredibly naive. If you actually think any of these plans are going to make it through Congress with these exact provisions, then I have a nice cannister of snake oil to sell you.

These policy papers are just smoke and mirrors to get votes when you're running for President. Practically none of this crap will even remotely be heard of again once about February or March.

3:22 - thanks for wishing me good luck. i actually don't wish you good luck. i wish you'd just move to canada. you are bad for the country.

WOW! So what you're saying, Ted Frank, is that Republicans have lower taxes than Democrats? Thank you for this wonderful revelation! We retarded lawyers had no idea!

Xoxo,
Captain Obvious

For those who just can't wait until Nov 4, 2008, go ahead and send your $34,000 check today to:

SSA
Processing Center Operations
Addabbo Federal Building
1 Jamaica Center Plaza
Jamaica, NY 11432

Guy calling all the liberals idiots/assclowns --

At the end of the day, we're going to win. We already took the Senate and the House, and if you look at poll numbers, things are only going further in our favor. Where are you going to go now? The U.S. is as free market as it gets, compared to most of the world. So I can understand why you're so angry. Your ideology has failed. Go cry in the corner.

Guy calling all the liberals idiots/assclowns --

At the end of the day, we're (us "liberals") going to win. We already took the Senate and the House, and if you look at poll numbers, things are only going further in our favor. Where are you going to go now? The U.S. is as free market as it gets, compared to most of the world. So I can understand why you're so angry. Your ideology has failed. Go cry in the corner.

Disappointing Clinton trolling. Just like her you're distorting facts and making up ones that suit you.

This entire post is disappointing Clinton trolling. Just like her you're distorting facts and making up ones that suit you. Would it have been so difficult to do a comparison between Clinton and Obama on the basis of their actual proposals or have you decided her scream on Saturday was her death rattle?

This entire post is disappointing Clinton trolling. Just like her you're distorting facts and making up ones that suit you. Would it have been so difficult to do a comparison between Clinton and Obama on the basis of their actual proposals or have you decided her scream on Saturday was her death rattle?

3:11 Here's a start on solutions -

1) Means test for SS benefits. Phase out starting at net worth > $5M

------

FDR is turning in his grave.

3:38 - that reminds me of what was said in july of '04: it is kerry's race to lose. this is why you're an idiot/assclown. i would love to see a study that tests the correlation of liberals and premature ejaculators.

I have to assume that a "5th-year associate" lawyer is in his/her late twenties/early thirties. Those are some serious big bucks you're taking home, even with the apparent tax hike that could happen. Really big bucks. Hard-to-spend big bucks, unless, that is, you're looking to invest those big bucks and make more big bucks. Those of us who aren't lawyers (but are of a more, ahem, modest profession, like engineering) would really not have much to complain about, higher taxes or not. While I sure wouldn't like to have more of my money taken from me, I certainly know when not to complain too much.

I cannot believe this is actually news to anyone here. What? You mean a Democrat is going to raise taxes on the upper middle class and rich? Who could have seen that coming?

Well, perhaps anyone with a brain.

Look, neither Clinton nor Obama look favorably towards us... we simply make too much money. Clinton and Obama know who primarily votes for them - the poor, the lower middle class and those people with so much money that taxes are a mere after thought.

Both believe in taxing the "rich" and here is the kicker - they have a different set of guidelines for determining who is "rich".... For the most part, if you make over $100,000, you are rich...

Our tax system is "progressive". The "rich" pay a greater percentage of their income than those of lesser means. Is it fair? No, of course not. Is it income redistribution? Of course it is.

Some of you Obama supporters just don't get it (or, for that matter, I guess just do not care...).

Bush is gone following the next general election. The election is between McCain and either Obama or Clinton (looks likely that Obama will win the primary). So, you can stop with the b.s. about Bush's "police state" and other garbage.

Look - Bush is a douche bag and a crappy president. However, that doesn't mean that McCain (who, by the way, has never gotten along with Bush) is going to be Bush Part II. About the only similarity I see between the two is that McCain is unwilling to immediately surrender to Al Quaeda in Iraq.

For those of you who indicated that you would gladly pay extra taxes/take a paycut for "more efficient government", I must say - are you serious?

Does the government having more money make it more efficient? Of course not.

What, if anything, would lead you to believe that a Democratic executive branch would be more efficient? If anything, Democrats, who believe in greater bureaucracy and larger government would be anything but efficient.

Anyone who would "gladly" pay more taxes is certainly free to do so under our current tax system. You do realize, of course, that the government allows you to pay additional taxes....so, are you going to? Come on... put your wallet where your mouth is.

When you factor in all federal, state and local taxes (e.g., income, property, sales, use, etc.), those of us likely pay anywhere from 40-50% of our incomes to the government. Why should we pay more?

I worked hard to make the salary I earn... I find it ridiculous that I am constantly being told that I need to pay more and more....

Save the lectures about how I need to "give something back" or that I need to "help those who are not as fortunate". I already spend 40-50% of my income to do so (excluding what charitable donations I personally make)..

This is why I don't live ni NY -- a fifth year making that much and she still RENTS! Ridic!

3:49 - your boy W has a 27% approval rating last time I checked...Dems control the House and the Senate. I'm throwing facts at you. BTW I can see the vein on your forhead beginning to pop. You might wanna lay down, son.

3:57 - your boys have the lowest congressional approval ratings in the history of polling, and W isn't on the ticket. again, this is why you're an idiot/assclown/premature ejaculator.

3:38 Liberal Assclown -

Yeah glad you dems got the senate and the house and also have managed to have a lower approval rating than W. Good job liberal assclowns!

wow lowest congressional approval ratings in history, good job nancy and crew!

3:50: I will gladly pay more taxes and go with Obama. There's more to it that you convenient left out -- our long-term interests have to be considered too. McCain's Iraq stance is enough to drive me to vote Democrat. Just think about it:

(1) McCain will stick around in Iraq and run up our budget deficit indefinitely for some mofos in another country that I could give two shits about. How does all that spending benefit me? I'd rather the money went to the poor or, ideally, that they'd just cut my taxes with all the cost savings.

(2) Obama, not McCain, will actually restore America's image throughout the world. It may sound shallow to think in those terms, but it's way more important than you think. Personally, I don't like being shit on when I travel to other countries. Even worse, you put a big fat target on your ass when everyone thinks your country is Satan, which means more terrorist growth, and more money wasted on security that could have gone for a better cause.

(3) I have a hard time believing McCain is going to be able to cut taxes with the amount of money being spent in Iraq.

With that said, once we're done with Iraq and have at least some credibility restored in the world, I'll gladly vote for a Republican in 8 years. But Iraq is a completely underrated issue right now--it's dragging our economy down to a point where China will overtake us and we'll be serving at the pleasure of the Gooks.

fair tax now

3:43 amen. Everyone on this board (and under 40) recognizes that SS is a TAX, so let's stop pretending that we should be getting the money back no matter what our situation is in the future.

Hey, if that's too tough for you lawyers, we can always recite what Shakespeare and the Christian Bible say about lawyers.

"(1) McCain will stick around in Iraq and run up our budget deficit indefinitely for some mofos in another country that I could give two shits about."

Unfortantely, some Conservatives share this idea with Liberals. "Why help these Towel Heads? They're too stupid for democracy."

For the Liberals and Conservatives who think this way, I ask you this:
Was it worth helping those damn Nazi Krauts? Was it worth helping those damn Japs?

How much is 60+ years of peace in Europe in Asia worth? How much is peace in the Middle East worth?

were all liberals beaten up as kids, or is the lack of self esteem something that's picked up later in life? "restoring America's image throughout the world"? waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! people don't like us!!!!!!! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! we are the only superpower, and we lead from the front.

3:49: Just like a Republican to take one data point and extrapolate from there.

4:01: Stop posting before you embarass yourself even more. Everyone loves their Congressman and hates Congress. It's always been that way, it will always be that way. Point to a Congress that has ever had a higher approval rating than the sitting President and I will give you $1.

Thanks for starting this comment clusterfuck, Ted Frank! You Suck, you Hillary pandering, intellectually dishonest, d*ckwad!

I was going to rebut a lot of the 'Imperial Bush State' tripe that's been floating around here today. but Tycho Brahe did an awesome job.

Always funny how people who rail against the 'Cheney/Vadar' police state can't seem to find one example of anyone's rights being violated. Hell, Cindy Sheehan is off in the mideast shilling for Hamas and Hizbollah. Guess what, the gov't will allow her back in the USA.

BTW, if you feel like posting a response--please include a verifiable street address. The black helicopters will be there shortly.

yeah but lowest approval rating of all time for congress currently, that is one hated group.

I was going to rebut a lot of the 'Imperial Bush State' tripe that's been floating around here today. but Tycho Brahe did an awesome job.

Always funny how people who rail against the 'Cheney/Vadar' police state can't seem to find one example of anyone's rights being violated. Hell, Cindy Sheehan is off in the mideast shilling for Hamas and Hizbollah. Guess what, the gov't will allow her back in the USA.

BTW, if you feel like posting a response--please include a verifiable street address. The black helicopters will be there shortly.

asshat 4:21 - save your $1 us rich rich republican a-holes don't need that chump change sucka

11:48,

I will explain this simply for you:

Lower tax rates lead to higher economic growth because the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. So, with lower tax rates, the pie gets larger, and eventually a smaller piece of a larger pie > than a large piece of a small pie.

Mathematically:

For high taxes: GDP*(1^Gh)*t1 = tax revenues received. Gh = economic growth under higher tax rate; t1 = higher effective tax rate.

For lower taxes: GDP*(1^Gl)*t2 = tax revenues received. Gl = economic growth under lower tax rate; t2 = lower effective tax rate.

Now take the derivative of each and you get Gl > Gh. So yes, in the long run, lower tax rates lead to more government resources.

And if you want real proof, look at Western Europe. Crowding out private investment is a real problem. Remember kids, even if you think the government should be in the business of transferring wealth, doing so ultimately makes all of us poorer!

Finally, for all the complaints about the Gini coefficient (income inequality), which admittedly is getting worse, we can't fix the structural changes easily.

I could discuss the confluence of loose money via the Fed, outsourcing, inelastic health care demands, overconsumption of health care, and yes, ineffective oversight, but I don't think my liberal friends would comprehend. They *feel* like things are wrong, and you can't argue with feelings.

Thank you and goodnight.

4:21 - we were not comparing the president's numbers to congress' numbers. your congress has the lowest numbers EVER. no congress has ever had lower numbers than your congress, EVER. and you asshats point to your 2006 victories as evidence that America, in a time of war, is going to vote for the most liberal senator in the senate, who is a freshman senator with no experience or accomplishments whatsoever? really? hey - i've always said that the best thing the republicans have going for them is the democrats. all we have to do is beat the clowns that you nominate.

Is Ted Frank the guy that makes those monkey t-shirts?

4:30: I stand corrected. Thank you for taking care of us misguided liberals.

4:43 - anytime we have enough $$ but hate any of it going to the govt.

Yes, let's have China and Saudi Arabia fund our government! Trust me. It will all work out in the end when our currency is worth nothing, we have no social welfare safety net, and are suffering from massive inflation. If this sounds fun then keep voting Republican.

Yes, let's have China and Saudi Arabia fund our government! Trust me. It will all work out in the end when our currency is worth nothing, we have no social welfare safety net, and are suffering from massive inflation. If this sounds fun then keep voting Republican.

Yes, let's have China and Saudi Arabia fund our government! Trust me. It will all work out in the end when our currency is worth nothing, we have no social welfare safety net, and are suffering from massive inflation. If this sounds fun then keep voting Republican.

12:48 - that's supply side economics or "trickle down economics" and is widely rebuffed by academics, but not by neo-cons. (they like it because it justifies tax breaks to big industry) Oh, and for those who like Ferris Beuller, George Bush (41) called it "vodoo economics" when running against Reagan in the 1979-80 primaries.

4:40/4:04: YOU were not comparing the President's approval rating to Congress's approval rating. THAT is why I did not include YOU in my post. Reading comprehension is a good thing.

Ted Frank has a hot girlfriend.

4:59 = Ted Frank's girlfriend

Social Security's deficit is around 25 TRILLION dollars over the next 75 years.

However, I would like a candidate who can fill that gap and not cost me - a biglaw associate making $330,000 - anything.

Seriously, what the F is wrong with you tards?

4:21/4:56 - i take that as a concession. quite admirable, actually.

all of you NYCers who bitch about the COL in NYC have no argument if you vote democrat

VOTE REPUBLICAN! (and post three times!)

Amen 5:14!

Top 3 ways to bring fiscal responsibility back to government

1) Cut Social Spending
2) Cut Social Spending
3) Cut Social Spending

5:12: You would. Keep those blinders on.

5:14: All of you non-NYCers who bitch about NYCers making more money have no argument if you vote Republican.

"Yeah glad you dems got the senate and the house and also have managed to have a lower approval rating than W. Good job liberal assclowns!"

Not to mention that a big chunk of W's low approval rating is because of conservatives who don't think he's conservative enough.

Why are do so many biglaw associates support socialism?

4:21/4:56/5:17 - you have not substantively responded to my post(s). this is because you can't.

"I have a hard time believing McCain is going to be able to cut taxes with the amount of money being spent in Iraq"

Iraq spending is 2 or 3% of the budget! Entitlement spending is 50%! Please stop saying this!

anyone that votes democrat has no argument. about anything.

5:22: What post are you talking about?

Vote Democratic = Hating $?

Vote Republican = Having no soul?

5:23 - exactly.... you don't see these libs complaining about the 70+ years of wasteful spending on social programs to no great effect

we need something more than a two party system.

I love it.

Vote Obama - he will restore our "credibility" in the world! Uh, yeah...whatever. How exactly will he do that?

Oh that's right, Mr. Empty Suit a/k/a Obama has not yet told anyone how exactly he would do that other than talk to every two-bit third world dictator that he meets.

I have a bit of info for you... U.S. is a superpower and, as such, is widely feared and/or hated for that reason.

We have been "hated" for a considerable time... this is nothing new (although, Democrats love to think it started with Bush).

For years, we have been hated by every communist country because of our anti-communist stance. Perhaps, Obama would apologize to Raul Castro on the US behalf. Remember Iran? Remember the Iranian revolution back during the Carter administration? Yeah, we weren't loved back then either.... and wouldn't you know it... Democratic administration. Clinton had his share of haters overseas too... (funny, but Iraq was one of those states).

Point is - hatred of the US is not related to the party in power.

The world may hate us for invading Iraq. But here is a news flash, the world hated us before then and quite frankly, will find new reasons to hate us.

Much of the world hates us because we are friends with Israel. Over 20 Arab countries and, of course, those overseas who think that we should assist the Palestinians with the second coming of the Holocaust. Should we stop supporting Israel too? That would be a real brain dead thing to do.

In fact, much of the world hates us for not invading Darfur. Much of the world hates us for not intervening in dozens of other conflicts.... if only the world's only superpower acted responsibly and forced every aggressor to submit.... etc.

Point is this... if you are out looking for popularity, you are not going to find it (not with out selling our interests and the country's soul to the devil).

We should continue to maintain our alliances and our good friends will stay with us.

5:29: Social programs that cost 2-3% of the budget and result in the death of 4,000 troops, an increase in terrorist activity, and hundreds of thousands of killed/injured/displaced Iraqis? No, we don't complain about those social programs. You caught us. We're such hypocrites.

"It's really pathetic to see many of my fellow biglaw associates so consumed by greed that they's lost (or never acquired) any sense of social responsibility for the genuinely less fortunate in our society."

Why is it greed to want to keep a large portion of the money you worked hard to earn - and not to turn over half your earnings to the Government to waste. And make no mistake, they waste a good portion of your money. Better to contribute to private charities that you can monitor and withdrawal your support if they mismanage funds, re-directing it to other charities that are managing the money better.

"Vote Republican = Having no soul?"

No, more like vote Democrat and have no brain.

Tycho Brahe: Can you show me when Western Europe ever "hated" us before W took office?

2:54 --

"Social security is also disproportionately unfair to minorities who have a much shorter life expectancy and therefore are not around to collect social security. If they were able to save the money in their own accounts they could pass the accumulated wealth down to future generations and give them a chance to escape the cycle of poverty that liberal policy puts them in."

Yeah. I'm a conservative coming at it from the other side.

1. How much money are these unfortunate minorities putting into the SS system? Lower paying job = lower SS contribution. If you don't put much in, it's not fair to take out more than your fair share. Personal responsibility.

2. What are these short-lived minorities dying of? Diabetes? Violence? Lung cancer? Bad lifestyle choices do not justify a free ride on those who make healthy choices, which -- surprise! -- also cost less money in both the short-term and the long-term. Put your cigarette and fast food and drug money into a savings account instead. The CDC shows Asian life expectancies are excellent, so it's not *all* minorities.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#027

Resident economics guru, thank you for being somewhat rational in your comment. While I don't agree with your politics 100%, it was at least rational and not as mindlessly offensive as most of the crap spewed by the selfish and idiotic "conservatives" around here.

However, you leave out an important point: lower taxes are great - as long as they don't result in harmful budget deficits! It makes no sense talking about higher or lower taxes in the abstract; of course 36% is better for my wallet than 70%, and 33% is better than 36%. Duh, we get it okay? But the government does things, and it needs SOME money to do them. Some taxes are necessary; exactly how much will depend on what exactly they're used for. And once we know how much we need, the tax rate will depend on comparing that number against the number of citizens being taxed, and how much money those citizens make (or are worth, for a net worth tax, or spend, for a consumption tax, etc.).

What us liberal assclowns are in favor of is some measure of correlation between taxes and spending. That is what is meant by efficient government.

Unfortunately, what I've seen from the right wing in the last 30 years is this: conservatives run on the ever-popular platform of lower taxes; then Republicans get into office and the national bureaucracy EXPANDS; government spending GROWS; and pork projects INCREASE. Lobbyists (i.e. former party loyalists) get obscenely rich while our government is sold out. All while we have less tax revenue, which means they're running up deficits and now some of my tax dollars are going to foreigners in the form of interest. That is not efficient government; it is not, in fact, conservative. Newsflash, would-be Tycho Brahe: conservatives are no longer the faction of small government. They talk a good game (or not), but it just ain't true anymore. I just see them saying whatever will get them elected, then handing out huge sums to their corporate and lobbyist friends, then cutting and running while leaving a huge burden to be shouldered by later generations.

So yeah, if I have to sacrifice a couple hundred dollars a month to keep these two-faced Republican non-conservatives out of office, then I'm happy to do so.

"It's really pathetic to see many of my fellow biglaw associates so consumed by greed that they's lost (or never acquired) any sense of social responsibility for the genuinely less fortunate in our society."

I already help those less fortunate. I am a big believer in private charities (they typically do a better job at helping than the government).

Notwithstanding, I am already paying almost 50% of my income in some form of governmental taxes.... at what point can I stop being accused of not being "socially responsible"?? Let me guess... Is 60% of my income enough? How about 70%?

At what point does it become less about "social responsibility" and more about "income redistribution" (or striving towards "income equality").

here here!

5:36 - western europe protested in the streets when Reagan deployed pershing missiles in western europe. france didn't let us fly over their airspace to attack libya after they committed terrorist acts.

5:33 - who gives a fuck about how many Iraqis die?

"For the most part, if you make over $100,000, you are rich... "

You're kidding, right? Try raising a family on $100,000 in a large city - not even a coastal city, for a few years and then tell me you're rich. Not unless you are sitting on assets from another source. At $100,000, you are comfortable, but not living in the best neighborhoods, and not taking exotic vacations. any you won't have a 2nd home. And an Obama tax increase on the "weathly" would have you re-adjusting your budget, because you would certainly feel it. Income and Wealth are different things.

Oh, and a final point: believe what you will; agree or disagree with the politics and/or economics; but it can't be denied that Ted Frank is the real assclown around here. The original post, even (hypothetically) if it was 100% accurate, is still clearly pure flamebait intended to stir up a pot of sh!t.

Even for a blog dedicated to rich, entitled, greedy asshat lawyers... I expect better from ATL. This is just sad.

Finally 5:30, an idea I can endorse....cut funding to Israel and many of our problems go away. They only get our support because the funding we give them ends up right back in our politician's pockets. Israel is a liability, not an asset.

Simple facts:

Obama, and ALL Democrats, hate America. They hate the military; they hate God; they hate the poor (thus, they continue failed social programs in order to continue keeping the poor and stupid poor, and to convince the poor and stupid that it is the Republican's fault); they hate unborn children; they hate corporations that create jobs. But, look on the bright side, Democrats love terrorists.

oh liberals when will you just give up and join the dark side. so much more fun over here, stop feeling guilty about all of your success and start enjoying it, you earned it!

Uh oh...5:44 has summoned the Jews to overtake this discussion! Yet another debate that will be stifled by speaking their name...imagine that.

McCain's wife = awesome first lady.

5:22: Again, what post are you talking about?

liberal assclown -

Why not cut spending to reduce deficits rather than raise taxes? Entitlement programs are approaching 50% of the federal budget. Why don't we start cutting there?

wow democrats hate America?!?!?

McCain's wife = MILF/GMILF

Obama's Wife = ?

I'll take Obama any day. As liberal assclown points out, lower taxes do not save us money if it just runs up huge deficits. There are very real costs to that, not to mention the deficit will have to be paid someday.

Also, I'll take ending the war in Iraq over McCain's plan to keep us there indefinitely, spending billions and billions of dollars a year there. Plus, who knows where McCain's adventurism would take us next...he's already joked about bombing Iran. I'm sure we can afford that.

When you add it all up, you come out way ahead with Obama, and not just on the monetary scale. On the human scale you come out way ahead.

"What us liberal assclowns are in favor of is some measure of correlation between taxes and spending. That is what is meant by efficient government."

Government Efficiency is an oxymoron. Governments are not incented to be efficient, and they never are. We have way more government than we need

Politicians, both right and left wing, are most interested in securing their careers, and increasing their power and influence by using your money and co-opting your power. They don't really care about you, silly. They don't really care about any of us. Our only hope is to limit government and keep our eyes on them all.

4:21/4:56/5:17/5:26/5:48 - after giving me a lecture on reading comp, you can't figure that out? really?

"What us liberal assclowns are in favor of is some measure of correlation between taxes and spending. That is what is meant by efficient government."

Government Efficiency is an oxymoron. Governments are not incented to be efficient, and they never are. We have way more government than we need

Politicians, both right and left wing, are most interested in securing their careers, and increasing their power and influence by using your money and co-opting your power. They don't really care about you, silly. They don't really care about any of us. Our only hope is to limit government and keep our eyes on them all.

5:44 - Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Mid East. That alone is a great reason to support Israel against the thuggish and terrorist states that surround her.

Um, Tycho Brahe, it clearly isn't about income equality. In case you hadn't noticed, income disparity is increasing, not decreasing. America ran out of communists a long time ago, you can stop searching for them behind every tree. Relatively to the rest of the world, American "liberals" and "conservatives" are very close to each other in terms of political and economic principles, and are both closer to the right wing than the left.

More concretely: your argument is easily, and soundly, turned agaisnt you. At what point do we get our tax rate right? You want 50% rather than 60%, right? But what about 40%? 20? It never ends. What people are arguing about here is 33% vs. 36% - and that only for income in the top bracket. It's a pretty small difference. Is 33% somehow morally correct and 36% not? Is 33% "conservative and 36% "liberal?" Thirty years ago 36% was pretty conservative.

Economic safety nets have proven to be useful. In fact conservatives were deploying economic safety nets long before the New Deal... they just weren't the particular safety nets we have now.

But the safety nets can't be *too* comfortable, and we of course need robust incentives for economic growth in private industries. Again: duh. Nobody's arguing with that. But we have to come up with a number: 33, or 36, or something. And arguing in absolute terms (not to mention childish name-calling) doesn't get us any closer to good policy.

I feel better about spending money on the war than on welfare for some fat bitch with 6 kids

B’tzet Yisrael mi-Mitzrayim
Bet Ya’akov me-‘am loez
Haytah Yehudah l’kodsho,
Yisrael mamsh’lotav
Ha-yam ra’ah va’yanos
Ha-yarden yisov l’ahor
He-harim rakdu kh’elim
G’va’ot kivnei tzon
Mah lekha ha-yam ki tanus,
Ha-yarden tisov l’ahor
He-harim tirkedu kh’elim
G’va’ot kivnei tzon
Mi-lifnei adon huli aretz,
mi-lifnei elo’ah Ya’akov
Ha-hofkhi ha-tzur agam mayim
Halamish l’mayno mayim

5:54: Since I responded to the only post you directed at me, I'm honestly not sure what you want me to respond to. Are you asking me to respond to a post that I never argued to begin with? Why would I do that?

Anon: I agree that govt is rarely very efficient, but that doesn't mean that we cannot aim for a higher level of efficiency.

As for limiting govt, what do you think about Bush's numerous expansions of executive power, all justified by him in the name of prosecuting the war on terror? What about his seizing the ability to arbitrarily intrude on one's privacy? Keep in mind that McCain supports all of this.

Also, how can one be for limited govt when one favors the disastrous war in Iraq? The war in Iraq is a huge drain on the budget. Indeed, one cannot be for this war and claim to be for small govt; that is a contradiction.

Bush, and by extension, McCain can hardly be called conservative. They favor budget busting wars, and huge expansion of federal power. And they try to motivate us to agree to this by playing on our fears.

So sure I'll take Obama anyday.

12:48 - So then the revenue maximizing tax rate is 0%. Its never true that increasing taxes will increase revenue?

I had thought even supply side economists acknowledge there was a bell curve whereby, where tax rates are relatively low, tax increases increase revenue. As the rate increases, each increase results in less and less of an increase in revenue (because the tax increases impact growth negatively). At some point you reach the revenue maximizing tax rate and any futher increase to the rate actually decreases revenue. The question of whether a tax cut would decrease or increase revenue, then, depends entirely on where you are on that curve.

But, I assume, because you used a lot of variables in your post, you are correct.

It's crazy, and scary, but $100,000 for a single person in SF or NYC does *not* make you rich, or even close to it. Take out 401(k) contributions [since SS won't be around for us], and you're at $84,500. Apply a 40% tax rate [generous, since the rate is actually higher], and you're at $50,700. Take out student loans of $1,200/month [by the way, this is the minimum payment on a 30 year plan], and you're at $36,300. Take out rent for a modest rent controlled studio or one bedroom [if you search high and low and are lucky enough to find such a place for $1,500] and you're at $18,300. Pack your lunches, don't drink starbucks, pick up the minimum plans on your cell phone and cable, never go out, don't own a car, never have a medical emergency, don't travel anywhere, and don't buy those fancy suits other posters insist you need to wear to the office, and you can cut your spending to around $500/month, which takes you down to $12,300.

Now, I agree that it is great that you have money "leftover," and know that many don't. However, it's not like this is enough for an average law student grad to start living large. Instead, such a person would likely choose to spend the $12,300 on some combination of the following options: Pay more than the minimum on your student loans [with private loan interest rates in the high single digits to low double digits, this is probably the best option]; travel home for the holidays [if you can get the time off]; go out a few times [maybe once or twice a month, to save your sanity], or save for a house [but who are we kidding: it will take you many years to save up for the downpayment for a crappy studio in one of these places].

And, by the way, the above hypo is for a single person. Gets worse if you're trying to support a spouse or kids.

"what do you think about Bush's numerous expansions of executive power..."

I am appalled by it all. We all need to work hard to limit government, or we will all be working had for the goverment, like surfs. Supporting large govenrment programs for the poor does not make one virtuous. We can do more for the poor with private charities. As I noted above, the goverment wastes so much of the money they take from us. Katrina (New Orleans) is a great example of this. Trying to "help" they wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. Some poor suckers had work hard to earn that money. And they wasted so much of it. Really sad. And here we are getting lectured about greed because we oppose this waste. Its more virtuous to roll up your sleeves and help your community yourself, than the sit at your kitchen table and demand that someone else (government) fix the problem.

5:58 - please wait until yom ha-atzmaut with that :)

5:49 - sure, that would be fine. I'm a liberal, and I'm for small government... imagine that! Simple fact is, if we spend a lot, we have to tax a lot; spend a little, tax a little. Note, as mentioned, that under recent Republican government spending has increased and the federal bureaucracy has expanded. Tend your own garden, buddy.

And again, before you start calling out (in absolute terms, of course) for cuts to some undefined "entitlement programs," try to tell me exactly what you want to cut, and show me an analysis of exactly what effect that would have on our economy.

Again: economic safety nets of various kinds have been beneficial to the overall economy. Major economic depressions used to be regular events in the 18th & 19th centuries; since the New Deal every recession we've had has been mild and short, and has been followed by periods of enormous growth. I won't pretend to be able to analyze 100 years of the global economy and pinpoint causality; but I will be so bold as to point out the correlation.

Is there some waste in the system? Of course. Should it be limited as much as possible? Of course. But there's waste in every such system. Look at military spending, the waste is astonishing. Walk around a major corporation and see exactly how people spend their time. You're a biglaw associate? Go see what your secretary is doing right at this moment. How many pages of her sudoku book has she gotten through today? Why pay her? Isn't that income redistribution too? Why not make her bill her hours? How well would the firm function if you did?

There's waste in *every* system. That doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's not a matter of 33% being more moral than 36% - both are immoral

Is there some consensus as to the maximum percentage a person should pay in combined state, local, and federal taxes?

I would say that 15%-20% would be a reasonable number.

The war is not about the US bullying another country. It's about us sharing a piece of democracy in a place where there is no hope for human/civil rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. The soldiers who go to the middle east are making real personal sacrifices to benefit these foreigners -- people they may never meet -- to help make their lives tolerable.

Americans, even those in the poorest conditions imaginable, still live in the US and have great resources available and -- with few exceptions -- are pretty much guaranteed not to starve and to enjoy protections on their rights and civil liberties unheard of in so many countries.

The war benefits the US by converting an enemy into a friend or at least a neutral (e.g., WWII Germany, Japan, Italy).

No surprise -- We already have troops in foreign countries all over the world, and always will, yes for 100 years and more. That does not mean there is an active 100 year war going on in any of these places. It keeps the peace. It maintains our bases. It keeps our embassies safe. It keeps communication open. These are all good things. Soldiers stationed in peacetime posts are not being regularly attacked and killed.

The US needs to help make a difference in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc. It would be selfish for the US to spend only on itself when the rest of the world needs so much.

Yes, we have a deficit. Businesses know that a balance sheet is all about having a tolerance for debt. There's good debt and bad debt. The US's failure to make a difference in violent anti-democracy regions is a risk that would ultimately lead the US into far more debt (due to more 9-11 attacks on the US, and those countries becoming even more hopeless bottomless pits of need that seem unfixable) so our intervention in these regions is a smart investment in the future, not to mention the moral thing to do, protecting the weak.

Anti-terrorism is not all political scare tactics. How quickly we forget 9-11, the London bus/train bombings, Spain, the many planned attacks that have been averted. Seeing the WTC pit daily helps me remember the cost of non-dilgence.

6:16: Do you have any principle, or even a shred of a principle, to back that number up?

6:20 - no I don't.... I just think that 15%-20% is a fair number - anything that government wants to do that can't be financed with 15%-20% of my wages shouldn't be done

safety nets are for pussies...grow a pair and live or die on your own initiative...women and men who know nothing of economics should not be allowed to participate in this discussion...

Anonymous: you must belong to the shrinking breed of people who actually try to continue to justify the war in Iraq.

I won't go into every point, but let's make a few:

The war in Iraq diverted resources and attention from other places, like Afghanistan, where we could have actually tracked down the terrorists responsible for 9-11.

The ongoing war in Iraq continues to hamstring us in our national security efforts everywhere else.

Not to mention the war on terror is making us realize that alliances matter, and the war in Iraq shredded a lot of those.

Then there's the fact that the war in Iraq has actually bred quite a few terrorists.

To equate having troops in Iraq with having troops in Europe or Japan is just silly. And it's sad to have that line coming from McCain.

Tell me when Baghdad will be just like Germany or Japan in terms of civil stability. How long must we lose lives and pay through our nose until that happens?

I know families that have sons in Iraq, and have sons in Germany. The ones with sons in Iraq worry; the ones with sons in Germany do not.

It's not a matter of whether we should combat terrorism, of course we should. But we need to do it smarter, and that is what Obama is all about. He predicted the problems that would come in Iraq; he advocated the policy in Pakistan that we are now actually taking. On so many fronts, Obama has proven to be correct.

One area where Obama will shine is that he will instantly improve our reputation and relations with the rest of the world. And that alone will help us in the war on terror, not to mention economically.

5:54: Seriously, is there anything for me to respond to? Just tell me the time of your post.

"There's waste in *every* system"

So why worry? Because growth in Social Spending in this country will negatively impact prosperity in this county, that why. Basic economics (my degree, btw): $1 spent in the private sector has more positve impact on the economy than $1 spent by government. The more of our GNP we allow the Government to spend, the more the pie wil shrink for all, but more critically, for the poor.

Its funny how people think you can just take $$ from the rich - no problem, they don't need it. Well these things have consequences. You should be more interested in balance.

I don't see how the war is relevant to this discussion at all. The war costs a hell of a lot less than medicare, medicaid, TANF, food stamps, etc.

Instead of all you libs bitching about the cost of the war, why don't we start reducing the deficit by cutting out some of the bullshit programs listed above.

"There's waste in *every* system"

So why worry? Because growth in Social Spending in this country will negatively impact prosperity in this county, that why. Basic economics (my degree, btw): $1 spent in the private sector has more positve impact on the economy than $1 spent by government. The more of our GNP we allow the Government to spend, the more the pie wil shrink for all, but more critically, for the poor.

Its funny how people think you can just take $$ from the rich - no problem, they don't need it. Well these things have consequences. You should be more interested in balance.

The reason dems don't care about higher taxes is because they all hate children, marriage, and unborn babies. Thus, they don't have families to support. The ones that do get married and have kids limit it to one kid. The others all have abortions, don't get married, or refuse to have children. Yet another reason the dems hate America.

Savor the "Democrats hate America" arguments while you can still use them. Your time is running out.

5:28 - since when does voting with my wallet mean I have no soul?

3:21:
The reason for the marriage penalty is the tension between having a progressive tax system and treating couples with the same income alike. Even if the tax brackets were raised for married couples (i.e. the marginal rate doesn't increase until they hit a higher level of income), this tension would still exist.

Basically, you have two choices: either 1) you have a marriage 'penalty' for couples with two incomes and a marriage boon for couples with only one income or a significant disparity in incomes, or 2) you treat couples with the same total income differently (i.e. one-income-earning couples pay higher taxes than two-income couples with the same total income). Alternatively, you could get rid of the progressive tax system.

SOMEBODY PLEASE POST ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHOSE PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED DUE TO THE "INCREASES IN EXECUTIVE POWER" THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS EXERCISED.

"Alternatively, you could get rid of the progressive tax system."

That one gets my vote.

"Tell me when Baghdad will be just like Germany or Japan in terms of civil stability. How long must we lose lives and pay through our nose until that happens?"

When Americans realize it takes real sacrifices to get us to that point. For WWII we had rationing, victory gardens, a huge military, massive sacrifice of lives. Freedom ain't free. This is not about instant gratification. Terrorists, the real deal, are not a myth. They mean business and so must we.

6:44: Warrantless wiretapping? Any victims of extraordinary rendition, like that Canadian guy?

6:44 - here, here

We should get rid of the progressive tax system. It's harmful to our republican form of government because it enables 50%+1 of the population to continue to raise taxes to higher and higher levels without consequence to themselves.

If we are going to have an income tax it should be very broadly based with a low flat rate. For example you could have a 20% flat rate with no exemptions or deductions that everyone pays on all income above the property threshold.

6:51 - what privacy rights does a canadian have under the US Constitution?

Let us just hope that Congress will not stupid enough to pass the tax increases that Pres. Obama would call for.

6:54: "Like".

To everyone who responded to me, did you miss the post immediately before mine? That didn't tip you off that my post wasn't entirely sincere?

6:51 - please name them then (btw, the canadian guy's lawsuit was thrown out; so please cite real, documented incidences).

Um, they're warrantless. There's no oversight. How could I name them? Isn't that an infringement on all of our privacy rights?

I always thought lawyers could read. I guess not. An earlier comment says Obama has the elimination of the rate cap as an "option" - here is what his website says "Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century." That does not sound like an "option" to me.

6:54 - that sounds like the Negative Income Tax plan that Milton Friedman supported.

The idea is that you have a flat tax rate, with no exemption or deductions, that everyone pays.

This is combined with the elimination of all government social spending (welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc), elimination of the minimum wage, and elimination of the social security program.

In place of all the programs the govenment pays everyone (regardless of income level) a guaranteed minimum income.

So, with a guaranteed minimum income of $10,000 and a tax rate of 25%:

Someone making $4000 would pay $1000 in taxes and get a $10,000 check for an after tax income of $13,000

Someone who makes $40,000 would break even paying $10,000 in taxes but also getting a $10,000 check for an after tax income of $40,000

Someone making $100,000 would pay $25,000 in taxes and receive a $10,000 check for an after tax income of $85,000

Someone making $1,000,000 would pay close to the full 25% rate, paying $250,000 in taxes and receiving a $10,000 check for an after tax income of $760,000

*note that I am using round, easy to work with numbers for purposes of this example. If actually implemented the numbers would be substantially different.*

The negative income tax eliminates a lot of the inefficiencies and administration cost of government social spending, while maintaining the redistributive aspects that liberals are so fond of.

7:10: Where in there does he say that he will eliminate the rate cap? In fact unless he means "increase" to mean "increase to infinity", it seems unlikely he will "eliminate" the rate cap.

7:03 - ah, back to the abstract hypotheticals. here's the thing - this hasn't adversely affected us - which i think you're essentially conceding - and yet it saves lives. what is the problem? why is your party anti-anti-terror? i don't want my manhattan office building to explode because of your hypothetical problems with the exact kind of techniques that were not in place on, yet could have prevented 9/11.

The New Deal did nothing to alleviate the Great Depression. It probably made things worse. The economy didn't turn around until Roosevelt baited Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and led us into an illegal and immoral war over who gets to control the oil in the Middle East.

7:03 - oh and unless you are talking to someone OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES who has been specifically listed by the CIA as a terror suspect, then what are you worried about anyway?

7:14: I haven't been adversely affected by the fact that the executive branch can tap a phone without any oversight? Would you be adversely affected if I peeked into your bedroom window at night?

How many Americans had to die just so Roosevelt could distract the country from the economic woes he created and bail out his Commie buddies Stalin and the Soviets.

7:14: I haven't been adversely affected by the fact that the executive branch can tap a phone without any oversight? Would you be adversely affected if I peeked into your bedroom window at night?

The Dems. harping on the Bush administration for civil liberties violations may fire up the leftist base, but it does not rally resonate with anybody else. It seems to me that it is a long term political loser with middle America to be against spying, detaining, or even torturing terror suspects because 99.999999999999% of Americans are not affected by the wiretapping, spying, rendition, or torture issues.

can we all just agree that you have to be functionally retarded to be a conservative and/or republican?

Wow - A sh*tload of bitter republicans read and post on this site. Enjoy the next 8 years of Obama Reps!

can we all just agree that you have to be brain dead to be a socialist and/or Democrat?

Bama3L, the problem is that liberals are also very fond of inefficiencies and administration costs of government social spending. Keeps the federal workers and unions happy.

7:22 - see 7:17. LEARN WHAT THE ISSUE IS. NOBODY IS LISTENING TO YOUR PHONE CALLS UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING TO SOMEONE OVERSEAS WHO'S ON A TERROR LIST. whining homo.

The answer is 291,557.

uh, 7:27, who's a socialist? the republican administration who keeps our progressive tax system in place and vastly runs up federal spending, or the democrats who may want to raise taxes a couple of percentage points on certain groups of people? i have absolutely no clue why people try to call tag democrats with the socialist label. the last democratic administration we had was far less socialistic than the current one.

7:28: LEARN THE ISSUE. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT PHONE CALLS PEOPLE ARE LISTENING INTO UNLESS THERE IS OVERSIGHT. MORONIC BIGOT.

Ha Ha, a lot of nervous little Republicans!! Keep praying and using this type of garbage numbers. If you earn over $250K, you ought to pay a little more to recover from the brilliant Presidency that's about to end in 11 months!

7:24 - I wouldn't be so sure. If you nominate Obama on day one after the convention you conceding FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, NC, SC, KY, WV, VA, TX, the plains, mountain & desert states, and the other rural states. McCain is going to be very very competitive in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Is this mostly because he is black? - Well, yes - unfortunate but it's reality

His natural electoral disadvantages combined with the utter lack of substance from his campaign will lead to his defeat in the general election.

Hillary would at least have a chance at states like AR, VA, NC, WV, NV, NM and would play better in Ohio than Obama and would lock up PA (where it will be in play with McCain).

7:34 - the problem is that they want to raise taxes on me

7:39 -

Keep dreaming - At least my *hope* is grounded in some reality.

Just a reminder to everyone -

republican and democrat refer to the forms of government

Republican and Democrat refer to the political parties

7:39 - is is racist to be against Obama?

Obama's definition of Hope = I will take as much as I can from the wealth earners in this country and give it to the people who vote for me

The next time I meet a lawyer who supports Obama, I'm going to ask to see their wallet. Then I'm going to take out half the cash and hand it back. When they get crabby, I'll say "oh, you don't like that? Don't worry, I'm going to spend it on something really, really worthwhile. Trust me."

Income redistribution provides no incentive for hard work. In fact, it's a pretty strong disincentive.

7:58: Clever. At least Obama is honest about it. I saw him tell a room full of high-priced attorneys point blank that he was going to raise their taxes.

7:23 - if functional retardation can be equated with beliefs in states' rights, personal responsibility, and the individual as his/her own best decision-maker, then yes - conservatives/Respublicans are functionally retarded.

To my knowledge, no presidential candidate has ever won on a raising taxes platform.

8:09: First, you need to get (approximately) a majority of the voting public to endorse what you're about to do, then you need to divide what is in his wallet by about 40 percent, then take 3 percent of that figure (so you're only taking the proportionate amount that was proposed). Then tell him that he's using that money to help those less fortunate than himself, and that he had (and has) the opportunity to help convince a majority (approximately) of the voting public to replace you if he doesn't like it.

You might also want to remind him that it's actually Congress who makes the laws and that you're only executing them.

8:09... wait, you just took half the cash and gave it back. Now all you're spending is your own cash. Thanks.

8:19 - do you maybe mean multiply what's in his wallet by 40 percent? Dividing gives you whatever was in the wallet times 2.5.

A clarification: Obama's proposal isn't to eliminate the cap altogether, but rather to institute a donut hole so that the taxes cap out at ~$100K and then start again at ~$200-250K. A big difference if you are a biglaw associate.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/25/obama.html

8:24: Whoops. Actually, I think what I meant was 1 - [cumulative tax rate]. That's why I'm a lawyer and not an accountant. My bad.

That is, divide by 1 - [cumulative tax rate].

I'll stop posting now. Sorry for the tangent. Fortunately, the post I was originally responding to is even dumber.

I love you, 8:19. Pull up your Windows calculator and see what happens when you divide 100 by .4 (or any other decimal less than 1).

But your post is flawed in other ways. I think what 8:09 was (hamfistedly) trying to say is that a Biglaw attorney who supports Obama is, then, supporting a plan to hand over more of his/her money to someone who is going to spend it on a bunch of entitlement programs while smiling and promising hope, change, blah blah taxcakes. If that's what the Biglaw attorney really believes, then why shoulh s/he protest someone taking a wad of cash out of his/her wallet and spending it on something the taker promises is really worthwhile? It's pretty much the same thing. The numbers are irrelevant - it's the mere idea that it's ludicrous to support someone who is flat out telling you they are going to take more of your money for things that do not benefit you at all.

"To my knowledge, no presidential candidate has ever won on a raising taxes platform. "

That was then. This is now. As the government shifts more of the tax burden to the "weathiest among us" (obama talk), more and more of the voters will pay little to no taxes. And once the number of voters 'exempt' from the burden of paying for the 'goodies', is higher than tax-payer suckers, at that time No President will be able to lose by promising to raise taxes (in the form of increasing the goodies paid to the majority on non-taxpayers).

7:55: Saying anything bad about Obama (racist) is the equivalent of saying anything bad about Israel (anti-Semitic).

Even though I'm just an absurdly paid monkey chained to the organ grinder like all of you bitches, I'm going to vote for Obama to stick it to you. Serves you right for being complete a-holes.

8:39 - that is very true, and very sad.

8:24: I understood what he was trying to get at. Just my execution was very, very poor. I was also trying to point out that there are procedural checks in place to prevent exactly what he was describing. Unfortunately, my attempt at snark misfired badly.

I divided by less than 1 to get a sense of the pre-tax dollars. If I start with 100 (pre-tax), end up with 60 after taxes (which is in my wallet when 8:09 finds me), I need to divide by (1 - 0.40 = 0.60) in order to get back to 100. Then the 3 percent makes sense. 3 percent of after tax dollars would be like a 5 percent tax increase, which - of course - is absurd.

This is such propoganda,,,totally ignoring accounting rules and using made up data.

Ah, sorry 8:19 - I thought you were dividing the original 100 by your decimal.

Procedural checks can only help you so much - raising taxes is raising taxes. I think in the end, you're either in favor of the government having more of your money or you aren't. As you can probably tell, I fall in the latter camp. The idea that there are people in my income bracket who come out on the other side of this issue scares the beejeesus out of me.

Actually, when I think about it, there's a way to reconcile the two sides. No where does the tax code prohibit people from tossing in some extra dough above and beyond what they owe when they file - so maybe we can leave tax rates the same for my income bracket and those who feel they wish to pay more heavily into government programs can just send a check on 4/15. Pizza for everyone!

"I think in the end, you're either in favor of the government having more of your money or you aren't"

Can we just split the country in two? One side for the "big government" people and one for the "small government" people. Then everyone can have the government they want. No, the 'big government' people won't allow it. They want to control everyone.

Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary. She specifically opposed Obama on his idea to remove the payroll tax cap.

What the hell were you thinking voting for Obama??!!!

I'm loving it. The ridiculous overpaid lawyers who prop up the Democrats year after year (along with unionized government "workers") are now whining because Obama will make them pay their fair share. HAHA! Wanna bet you guys will be furiously paying off, err, making campaign donations so that a special exemption will be made?

Obama should be exiled to a communist country, if any of those have survived.

I love when smart people seem to think that poor people are all "lazy" and that rich people are successful because they "worked really, really hard." I used to think the same, until I read The Bell Curve. High IQ (which you did nothing to deserve) is the single best predictor for your eventual socioeconomic status. You really think that, on average, a complete moron can just work really darn hard and lift himself out of poverty? You really think that all your hard work in high school, college, and law school (i.e. drinking four nights a week and writing papers the night before they were due) is the reason that you got that job at a fancy BigLaw firm? Maybe you should be a little more thankful that you won the genetic lottery.

Can't we all just admit the Social Security was a big Ponzi Scheme?

Private property is theft, no two ways about it. The STATE knows better and will decide how much its citizens need. If you make too much money, send it in. If you decide not to work for half the year because "you're working for nothing" get in line - the good news is that you have a choice of three different colors of blindfold. If you play along, though, you'll get a nice annual vacation, three weeks, in Aruba. The game has a price, comrades.

Arthur Laffer is an economist who theorized that when the marginal tax rate became too high, people would begin to choose leisure over labor. The effort to earn that next dollar is not worth it because you'll keep so little of that money. He was famous for his theory, which I studied in school.

I have been lately thinking about Laffer. I make a middle class income - but am taxed heavily because of my husband's larger income. I work very hard - make a lot of sacraficies to work. Don't have to work, but choose to. And I pay A LOT in taxes because of our "household income". It rankles, but I continue.

But after hearing Obama's speech last week - the one where he promised to raise my taxes (income as well as social security), I reached a decision. If Obama is elected (or Hillary), and they are able to pass these tax increases, and I have to pay even more taxes, then I am going to stand down. Quit. Stay home and donate my time to schools and churches. Take up golf. I am a poster child for the Laffer Curve.

And when I quit - I will fire the kid who mows my grass, and my maid too, I can do these things myself with my free time. So these two people will have less income. And the