i'd expect clinton gave more to charity since she made $20 mil last year...

If Barrack is elected and raises taxes, expect more layoffs as partners see their PPP dwindle and offset losses by axing associates. Recession plus largest foreclosure crisis since great depression plus tax increases plus increasing capital gains tax means your job. Time to move to Canada.

Lat is a Republican (all be it a gay one of color with above average intelligence). He's not pro-Hillary, he's anti-strong Democrat.

Wasn't Obama the one who was bitching about how Clinton hadn't released her tax returns, and he just releases his YESTERDAY?

10:09 - Look at the final column, charitable gifts as a percentage of AGI.

HRC gives much more of her income to charity than Obama (in percentage terms, not just absolute numbers).

Barack's tax platform is the equivalent of throwing TNT on a lit fire hoping to put it out. He will burn this country to the ground. McCain is the only shot for this recession to turn around.

Obama went after Clinton for dragging her feet in releasing her 2006 returns. As far as I know, she hasn't released her 2007 returns yet.

10:15- Hey genius, he his 2007 tax returns yesterday, because they were recently done, he had already released previous years tax returns.

10:16- Given where the Clintons are in their life-cycle compared to Obama (substantially more years of earning a high income, kid is already out of college versus young children that are still being supported), it should be expected that the Clintons would give a higher percentage of their income to charity

the point is that both the Michelle Obama is disingenuous. She needs to acknowledge that she is part of a privileged family, with a privileged Ivy League education, etc.

Is it really giving to charity when the Clintons donate to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Foundation has held on to most of the money? What is donated from the Clinton Foundation is donated to other politico foundations in order to garner more support (ie. superdelegates). (allegedly) Now that's charity!

The Clintons claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. Those contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons, which has given away only about half of the money they put into it. Oh yeah, most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

The Obamas have given about $50,000 to their pastor Jeremiah Wright over the past two years alone.

Now that The Obamas' church is building a mansion in a private-gated neighborhood for a cost in excess of $1.5 million, there must be some other wealthy donors funding his hatred to America.

I was glad to see Charlie Gibson point out the correlation between capital gains tax rates and overall tax receipts. I'm sorry that people at TPM are so dogmatic that they aren't willing to accept the possibility of lowering tax rates in some areas to bolster the economy, which leads to higher tax receipts.

Thank you Obama and Clinton to committing to no new taxes for people making less than $200k.

Yes, because the cap gains tax was a top priority for working class Dems in Pennsylvania? Give me a break, 10:59.

It's good to see that after last night's debate Lat felt the need to just twist the knife and piss off the Obama crowd a little bit more. Thanks for reminding us that this is a tabloid blog, and the opinions of its contributors are asinine, Lat.

Hillary Clinton is the biggest fraud. For those pointing out that the Clintons gave more to charity, a few things:

1) Note the correlation to her political aspirations. How about when they donated 1.2% when they made almost $10 million? She is a g-damned fraud and political hack

2) The Clintons are worth in excess of $100 million and they are old.

3) Who gives a shit? Is there are requirement that you donate money to charity? Also, does giving it to your own self serving "foundation" that accomplishes jack shit really count?

4) I love the elitest tags on Obama when he is by far the poorest of the three candidates and unquestionably had the hardest upbringing.

This guy wants to raise your taxes while taking advantage of every possible tax break designed for the wealthy. I don't know about you but my limit for my 401k is $15,500 not $45,000.

Also, I find it interesting that NONE of the Democrats have made a voluntary contribution so that their tax burden equals that under the "fair tax code of Bill Clinton".

DEMOCRATS ARE FRAUDS!

11:14 -

You are more than welcome to contribut up to 45,000 ... you just can't do it all into your 401(k). You have to set up a SEP-IRA or a Keough plan for the rest, but nothing is stopping you from contributing the maximum except your laziness from asking a benefits lawyer at your firm how to put more money away.

11:09 - "...Lat felt the need to just twist the knife and piss off the Obama crowd a little bit more."

Uh, I would really hate to see the Revs Wright and Meeks and Ayers REALLY get pissed off.

Please. You're angry because you've attached yourself to an inexperienced man, who's only real skill (aside from being a "community organizer") is being able to read from a teleprompter coherently.

Obama et al. refuse to allow him to be vetted. Until he is, he hasen't a chance (phew).

11:18 - how is that possible given that law firm associates are not self employed?

the only reason lowering cap gains taxes could potentially increase tax revenue is because rich people see a low tax rate, lose their mind, and start selling their investments so they can pay the lower rate on their current increase. The same effect happens when the rates rise, you sell the day before. I know, we have clients do it all the time. There's no actual correlation, its a manufactured one. The highest cap gains tax receipts were in periods of high rates AND economic expansion. That's the other more important factor, what's going on in the economy. If the market is skyrocketing, you're not going to take profits regardless of rates, but if it's plummeting, you're going to take them no matter what. The rates are only a factor, not determinative of revenue or the behavior of taxpayers.

I love how the Obamaites try to justify their messiah being so niggardly (word of 15th century origin meaning miserly) and donating barely a pittance to charity (most of which goes to Jeremiah Wright).

First, they claim that Clintons should donate more because they earned more. But the Clintons have donated more in both absolute and proportional terms.

Then they claim that the Obamas cannot afford to donate as much because they are at an earlier point in their life cycles. As if there's a big difference between being age 46 (Obama in 2007) and age 53 (Clintons in 2000 after eight years of public service salaries). And as if there's a big difference in paying for college between keeping $1.6m and $1.55m pre-tax in 2005.

And notice how Obama's donations zoomed up since 2005. Gee, could it have anything to do with a decision to run for higher office and trying to look good? Yet he could never bear to give anywhere close to the 10% Biblical guideline (gross, not net).

Bottom line, Obama loves keeping his own money, but he likes taking money from others and redistributing them.

11:18, genius, how can an associate be eligible for a SEP-IRA - they are only for SELF-EMPLOYEED folks.

I would never ask our benefits attorney such a dumb question and I'm very glad that you don't work for me!

Obama is such a fraud. Donated jack to charity until he starts to become a public figure. I'm sure thats just a huge coincidence. I can't believe anyone educated cannot see through his smoke and mirrors.

11:36 - Your analysis (and I use that term lightly) is very flawed. The less money you make, the harder it is to donate to charity. If you make $200k have two minor children and a load of debt, how much should you give to charity? What about if you make $20 million, have secured presidential and congressional pensions, no debt, and one grown child (beast)?

If a single mother of two making $20,000 a year gave $20 to charity (0.001%), she would be much more charitable than the Clintons.

In summary, go fuck yourself.

There are two taxes, capital gains tax and wage tax.

For the wage tax, you want to set it at a point where it maximizes revenue. Set it too low and you get a lower percentage. Set it too high and people stop working so you get a lower tax base. Worldwide experience shows that it is best around 30%.

For the capital gains tax, the concerns are much different. People are only taxed on realization events, i.e., when they sell. Set it too high and people will never sell stocks. It's much easier to not sell stocks (you still benefit from price appreciation) than it is to stop working (no income). Worldwide experience shows that it is best around 0-20%.

There is no reason why the two rates should always be equal, and thus the complaints about the capital gains rate being too low compared to the ordinary income rate are pointless.

Obviously, the more you make, the easier it is to donate both in real terms and proportionately.

That said, I think it is pretty shocking that Obama donated under $1,500 on an income of more than $250,000. I donated slightly more than that last year on a similar salary and felt pretty crappy about my lack of donations. Any way you slice it, that is a pretty weak showing.

Yes, Obama is from a modest background because his mother was clearly a huge flake. He's also from a highly-educated background, so I've got a little trouble with equating him with, say, Bill Clinton (who legitimately came from nothing).

11:57, it's hilarious that you're comparing your messiah Obama to a minimum wage worker. In 2007, Obama is age 46. Any "debt" that you claim he has is due to his own doing. It's been over ten years since HLS so his student loans, if not paid off, are his fault. Obama earned $4 million dollars. That's over $4,000,0000. He gave 5.8% to charity.

In 2000, Hillary Clinton was 53. The Clintons earned $357,000. That's six digits, and much less then $4m. The Clintons gave 10% to charity. They continued to give 10% overall.

So all this excuse about Obama having high expenses is pathetic. If Obama gave an extra 4% to charity ($160k), I think their $2.4 million in take home income should be enough for three yachts for their children.

From 2000 to 2004, when the Obamas made $250k each year, they never gave more than $3500 to charity. I eagerly await the Obamaites defending their messiah.

11:47,

Don't hate tha playa, hate on tha game.

@11:59 AM

Arguments for taxing capital gains at the same rate as income from employment are primarily based on tax equity concerns. Most rich people have capital property and can make income from the appreciation of capital property, while most poor people make their income from employment.

Also, capital property has been misconstrued by the courts (at least in Canada, where I am from). Property that has no income earning potential is considered capital property merely because it has a dual purpose (e.g. corporate shares that are purchased speculatively rather than to receive dividends). However, the main rationale for taxing capital property at a lower rate is due to inflationary concerns that are not relevant when property cannot produce income. In sum, the purpose of taxing capital property at a lower rate does not align with reality.

I agree that tax law should attempt to neutral, however the tax equity concerns easily trump tax neutrality.

@12:08: "Obama earned $4 million dollars. That's over $4,000,0000."

That is, on many levels, the dumbest comment ever on a blog that has had way more than its share of dumb comments.

12:31, I think he was trying to emphasize how large the number is by showing the number of digits. So your comment is kinda dumb.

Plus a typo, of course.

Ok, I'm not a CPA or a tax attorney, so this may be a stupid question. How did Obama avoid paying AMT? I thought the only deduction that didn't get eliminated was mortgage interest.

What's wrong with not giving to charity? I thought that was what taxes were for.

11:13 -- Obama had the "hardest upbringing"?

You do realize that he went to an uber-pretigious private school in Hawaii that was for the super-wealthy. He may have been on a scholarship, but it's hard to credibly argue that Obama has had a tough life.

AMT?

1:10 - he went to that school because he was "uber-smart" not because he was "super-wealthy." I think he would have traded that school to have really known his mother and father instead living with his grandparents because his mother couldn't. Just a guess.

The highest tax bracket is higher than the highest AMT bracket, so for the "super-rich" for whom the AMT was meant to target, its typically a non-issue. For rising earners (like say, young BIGLAW attorneys) who pay a lot of state/local/real/estate taxes or otherwise have many deductions, the AMT catches them.

The highest tax bracket is higher than the highest AMT bracket, so for the "super-rich" for whom the AMT was meant to target, its typically a non-issue. For rising earners (like say, young BIGLAW attorneys) who pay a lot of state/local/real/estate taxes or otherwise have many deductions, the AMT catches them.

Yes, 1:27, I'm sure that his being black had nothing to do with his getting into the school with a nice scholarship. If Obama were white, he would not - NOT - be where he is today.

clarence thomas should be running for president instead of obama. he had a *tough* upbrining and has accomplished more.

1:39 - I can think of many people black, white, asian, etc who are in positions in life based not upon their own merit but some other factor. You are so racist...I mean profound.

I'm sorry some minority:

a) took your girlfriend
b) took your boyfriend
c) picked on you at school
d) took your mom
e) all of the above

Just because Obama has a deadbeat bigamist black daddy and a flaky white mother does not mean that he has a tough upbringing. Furthermore, his mother and stepfather raised him until he was 10. For all intents and purposes, after age 10 he was adopted and raised by his grandparents and went to prestigious and wealthy schools in rich Hawaiian neighborhoods. To say that he had the toughest childhood is to say that all adopted children who don't really know their biological parents have the toughest childhoods, which is patently false.

If I lived with my mother until I was 10, then went to Ponahou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, nobody would think I had a tough childhood. But I'm not black nor do I have a bigamist black dad.

a month ago, there would have been 100+ comments on this thread within 20 minutes.

ATL=dead.

1:35/1:36 - thanks for the explanation.

1:39. Come on, grow up. This guy has 2 years in the US senate, no significant executive leadership experience in government or the private sector and you think the media not attacking him for his inexperience has nothing to do with him being a black candidate? Very naive.

I am not the racist here. I think everyone should be treated equally. If you think that people should be given special priviledges based upon skin color, then YOU are the racist! It's that simple in my eyes.

And shut up, my wife is a minority, so you have no clue what you are talking about - you can't look into my heart and tell me what I am.

1:58 - Keep digging....

2:10,

As a moderate and likely Obama voter, I find your condescension and bull$hit self-righteousness absolutely disgusting. If there were fewer people like you, more people like me would be Democrats.

2:13 -

You can't see into my heart. I'm married to a Republican.

I pity your spouse, 2:20.

***NEWSFLASH***

Listen up, Biglaw associates and those who aspire to be.

Obama, if elected, will endeavor to raise the federal tax rate for those making six figures to 39.5%. More revolutionary, he proposes to lift the $200,000 annual earnings cap on the 12% annual Social Security contributions. (This is his so called “doughnut” plan.)

Therefore, for high income individuals (and this includes you), after factoring in mandatory Medicare contributions of 3%, and state income tax (in high income taxing states such as CA and NY), high income tax payers will be subject to a marginal tax rate of above 62%.

Pointing out these facts does not render the messenger “pro-Hillary”. This is simply information material to your choice of the nominee/President.

With all of your research tools available (even talking to the tax partners in your firm) you are more than able to look into this issue and make up your own mind.

If you are simply one of the TTT law student trolls on this site who have no such prospects, then obviously you don’t give rat’s ass.

However, if elected, Obama could spend 8 years in the White House with a Democratic majority congress, and I don’t think you will be happy looking back 8 years from now after giving Uncle Sugar over 60% of the salary and bonus you earned the right to with 12 hour days.

Think about it or not, but it is not “biased” to raise the issue.

Obama likes punitive taxation.

From last night's debate:

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to anti-tax paying sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

- BHO

Well, 2:54, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising all of those taxes you mention for purposes of fairness.

- BHO

Fairness? Giving a tax rebate to people who don't even pay taxes? Is that fair?

The only fair tax is one where EVERYONE pays the same percentage and we don't penalize folks for being successful. You shouldn't have a right to vote unless you pay taxes.

Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up on ATL because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through. So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about taxes. And they get mad about paying taxes. The truth is that these traditions of complaining about taxes that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count their money and they count how much they have to pay in taxes. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream while still paying lots of taxes.

- BHO

I think we have moved beyond "tax equity concerns" when the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% pay <1% of income taxes, the bottom 20% pay negative 6% tax (they get cash back), yet people still clamor that the top don't pay enough taxes and the system needs more progressivity.

My problem with the raising of capital gain taxes and dividends taxes is that he is also asking for a raise of other taxes. Check this out from WSJ:

"...this respect, I believe your economic views are short-sighted. You've pledged to raise income tax rates to 39.5% and lift the cap on payroll taxes, which would end up raising the top rate on income to 52% or more. You also want to raise dividend taxes to 39.5% and capital gains to 28%, plus you want to return to a confiscatory 55% "death tax."

Think about ALL THOSE TAXES at once!!!! Guys, this is crazy. At least it pushes me out of biglaw once and for all. The market is slow so I can have a semi-life... but when you start billing those 250+ hour months, paying all those taxes will make me cry. What's the point of working that hard if you have to pay all of that combined? No thanks. No Obama for me.

#2:54 - EXACTLY my point.

Ditto 4:51. I'm not doing this shit if the money I sweat for will go to some family that isn't mine.

Dear 4:51:

The WSJ example was only talking about federal taxes. When you factor in state taxes in high income taxing states like CA and NY, "the top rate on income" jumps to above 60%.

Seriously, ouch!

That is reason enough to hope there is not an 8 year Obama reign.

if experience was a good indicator as to the job one would do in office... our government would be in better shape than it is now..... and im not just talking about the executive branch...

Let's say you earned $100. If you invest it in a company that earns 10%, you get $10 in dividends when there are no taxes.

Under Obama, Social Security and Medicare take out $15.30. State taxes take out $7. Federal tax at 35% takes out $32.50. You get $45.20 left.
When you invest that in a corporation, it earns $4.52. Corporation pays corporate tax, leaving $2.94. When you get that $2.94 back in dividends (Obama rate of 35%), you get back $1.91 in cash.

In other words, an investment that normally would yield $10 in dividends will actually yield $1.91 under Obama. That's 81% tax rate when you count the double taxes. Yes We Can.

You will not have to worry about paying taxes once your law degrees are worthless under Sharia law!

OBAMA ACKBAR!

I thought this topic was going to be about how Obama realized that raising capital gains rates was actually a tax increase on the middle class, and decided he would stop telling people that he was only planning on soaking the rich. Whooops.