first?

"(Still, commenters' reactions can best be described by Tyler Cowen's description of "Obama insecurity": "For some people no comment on Obama, other than the purely laudatory, is anything other than a hackish right-wing attempt to forge an alliance of lies with Karl Rove and his ilk.")"

No, they're calling you out because you only presented one side of the issue. In order to be fair to Obama, you need to talk about all of the wonderful handouts these tax increases would buy for poor people.

Of course Obama will raise taxes. We have to balance the budget somehow.

Since the best predictor of future behavior is past conduct, here is my bottom line from the post:

“[I]n his short Senate career, Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times in three years.”

An effective reduction in big law firm associate salaries by 34% in the face of a slowing economy ought to be a wake up call.

Hahaha awesome use of frat stud in the post.

"[Disclaimer / Disclosure: Since April, five weeks after I wrote the original ATL pieces, I have been doing unpaid volunteer work conducting research and interviews and writing memos for an adviser to the McCain campaign."

Might have been a good idea to lead with the disclaimer. I thought I was reading disinterested analysis.

Turns out that I was wrong. Thanks a lot.

McCain = TTT

Ted Frank is too partisan to accurately analyze this issue

lol @ President Jindal.

If Obama knows what's right, he'll raise the Social Security tax. It'll suck for associates (and many others), but the system is on track for insolvency. Pushing the increases until 2019 is chicken-s**t

tl;dr

Let's tax on net worth. How can I be "rich" if I owe more in student loans than I make? And enough already about helping "working people." WTF do I do all day if not work? I am the working man. F Obama.

It is hard for me to give any credit to this post because the author is so clearly anti-Obama. Why is it necessary to cite all those examples of him changing his mind? Just tell us how his current tax plan will affect our salaries.

Dear #4:

Barack Obama is not even promising that he will TRY to balance the budget.

Or perhaps I have missed something and you can post a link to the contrary.

There are no democrats in the tax foxholes.

This is bogus. The superfluous listing of alleged flip-flops on non-tax matters shows the true colors, here.

Nice hit piece, guy. The truth, as any slightly interested and educated individual is aware, is that the war in Iraq and the complete financial decadence of this "conservative" administration have left us with no choice but to tighten the belt - raising taxes, cut spending, and quit the globe-trotting neo-con adgenda. Lowering taxes and bombing Russia over a backwater state and an unworkable missile-defense system are not going to contribute to higher associate salaries.

Ok 4...interesting considering Obama has NEVER said that he would balance the budget...in fact, he has explicitly indicated that he liberal social agenda is more important than a balanced budget....also, think about...universal health care, 900 billion a year to fight world poverty, no taxes for seniors, etc....you'd need to raise taxes to a 90% level to pay for all of that crap.

I love how Republicans don't want their taxes raised, but they still want a massively expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan. How are we supposed to pay for all of this without raising taxes? Cutting government programs will only get you so far.

[Disclaimer / Disclosure: Since April, five weeks after I wrote the original ATL pieces, I have been doing unpaid volunteer work conducting research and interviews and writing memos for an adviser to the McCain campaign. I do not speak for the McCain campaign or for my day job employer.]

enough said

"I'm just a legal guy who was running back-of-the-napkin numbers to see how the Obama tax plan would affect me and my domestic partner and sharing the results with ATL. People who know far more about taxes than I do have taken........."

The above quote should have been inserted immediately after the disclaimer that Mr. Whoever has been volunteering for the McCain campaign.

"Back of the napkin"? WTF.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

Funny, I didn't think i was reading RedState...

Seriously, 7. Maybe Mr. Frank can come back next week and tell us why Obama is a baby murderer and a terrorist, then slide in a disclaimer so he can pretend to be neutral.

12, are you a twat-waffle or just pretending? That he has changed his mind so many times ought to inform how you evaluate the relevance of his *current* tax plan. Context, (wo)man!

How about a compromise?

All you bleeding hart democrats can pay an extra 2-4% in taxes and no cap on social security taxes, while the rest of us keep taxes unchanged.

This is more fair than forcing the rest of us to pay taxes for your socialist programs.

what's with the small font on this thread?

Ted "TTT" Frank = EPIC L.O.S.E.R.

Ted Frank probably wanted a job working for the McCain campaign (it's very apparent where his loyalties lie) but he couldn't even get a paid gig, which is a testament to Frank's abilities given the morons that work for the McCain campaign. "Nuff Said.

Tax attorneys to $200K on inauguration day.

"I'm just a legal guy who was running back-of-the-napkin numbers to see how the Obama tax plan would affect me and my domestic partner and sharing the results with ATL. People who know far more about taxes than I do have taken........."

The above quote should have been inserted immediately after the disclaimer that Mr. Whoever has been volunteering for the McCain campaign.

"Back of the napkin"? WTF.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

If each of us were to take the difference in taxes and pay it directly to a worthy cause rather than to the federal government, the impact of that same amount of money would go so much further.

Barack Obama's proposals, according to The Washington Post, "would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018." The same article states, "Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Obama has never made balancing the budget a priority. He concedes that he would not be able to do it during his first term, and probably not during his second, either."

So go ahead and stick your heads in the sand because of the author’s (disclosed) political affiliations.

Hey Tools:

"Back of the Napkin" = TTT

"http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=back+of+the+napkin&word2=back+of+the+evenlope"

Ted Frank to proper cliches!!

12: Citing all of the instances that Obama has changed his mind on taxes indicates one or more of the following:
a. They were empty promises aimed at winning populist support, and he will conform his platform as popular opinion ebbs and flows.
b. He didn't really think it through the first time around.
c. Even he realizes how insane some of his proposals would be.
d. He's done whoring to the left; he's now ready to whore himself to the center.
e. His limo liberal supporters are jumping ship.

Oh boy! A hardcore right-winger gets to make a third dishonest post about Obama!

Man, this place is awesome! Biased political tripe, ads for Lateral Link, incredibly boring Asia Chronicles...I should come here more often!

I agree with 11. I'm tired of being labeled as "rich" when I'm carrying a debt load larger than my pre-tax salary.

"All you bleeding hart democrats can pay an extra 2-4% in taxes and no cap on social security taxes, while the rest of us keep taxes unchanged. "

Sounds fair. And in return, all of you Republicans join the fight in Iraq.

Lat, I don't come here for stupid, one-sided political analysis. Please, stop it. You can pretend this is relevant because the post talks about taxes big law associates will pay, but since the analysis only speaks of one side of the debate, it's hardly helpful.

Student loan is TTT.

What is so bad about raising taxes? Why has it become such a political epithet?

Why can't we (Democrats) just "own it"? Why can't we say, "Yes, we're going to raise your taxes -- so what"?

Another web-traffic monster by Ted Frank--good job! As with the previous post, 99% of commentators have nothing substantive to add. If Frank is such a worthless partisan hack, let's hear the truth about Obama's plan from someone who has looked at the facts and has a different take: an open message board is a great forum for that.

9: I say this with all of the sincerity I can muster, but I really hope social security crashes and burns. Senior citizens deserve a little taste of Darwin.

23 Here, To 34:

I'm not a Republican either. The war is an expense we can immediately cut, along with just about all welfare programs and any other funding that promotes laziness.

There are no poor hardworking people in this country.

Why aren't tax burdens already based on net worth? It seems like a fiscal oversight on the government's end.

Taxing my inherited wealth is TTT. Dynasty, people, dynasty.

32: dishonest post about Obama? Please, start pointing out the inaccuracies, link to a source, and then perhaps we can discuss the inaccuracies. But, if your only basis for that opinion is simply that you are a cult-like Obama follower, please keep it to yourself.

I also agree with 28 regarding giving money ourselves. I give my own money to charities to help the less fortunate. It tends to do better as it is administered by people who actually care about what they are doing and aren't government bureaucrats trying to hold on to their jobs. Raising taxes will not save social security--it will only provide more of a slush fund, which is what it's used for now as the federal government raids it yearly.

You want more of your money to government than to private organizations? Then send in a check. Don't mess with my money as I need it for my many law school loans and already pay thousands of dollars a month in taxes to pay for handouts.

I wonder when David "I heart fascists like Monica Goodling" Lat will bother to invite a paid adviser to the Obama campaign to comment on John McCain's economic pandering. (E.g., his ever changing position on whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent).

#36, yeah, you go ahead and try that... see how it plays among the voters outside of Massachusetts and Greenwich Village.

Lat, the story isn't "popular" when most of the 900 comments are ripping you for posting ridiculous right-wing crap.

I love the frat stud reference. Kudos to "trillion dollar tax increase".

[Disclaimer / Disclosure: Since April, five weeks after I wrote the original ATL pieces, I have been doing unpaid volunteer work conducting research and interviews and writing memos for an adviser to the McCain campaign. I do not speak for the McCain campaign or for my day job employer.]

enough said

I love all of the hand-wringing from you "hard-working" lawyers about your taxes. Stand up if you weren't born into a middle to upper middle class family, never had to study for a test until high-school or college, had no conceivable notion of not going to college and beyond, never had to legitimately work to feed yourself or your family. You didn't earn shit. You were born lucky. Your handout was giving to you at birth. Don't imagine yourself to be a better person for it.

It is doubtful that Ted Frank will read this comment, and it is even more doubtful that if he does, he will respond. Nevertheless, as independent who like many is trying to make an informed decision, I have to say I am offended by your injection of this biased report and these flat-out falsehoods into the debate.

I won't address your discussion of Obama's "flip-flopping" because I feel it's irrelevant and infantile to single out any one candidate for refinements and retreats on positions such as taxes, budget, and fiscal policy. All of these change as the economic conditions change. You cut taxes in a recession; you raise them to combat inflation. McCain and Obama can make all of the promises they want, but none of this is as outcome determinative as the state of the economy in 2009, 2010, and so on. For this reason, and because McCain has been equally two-faced on this issue (against the tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible, but now for them, social security privatization and funding), I reject the first 85% of your analysis as it does nothing to advance the debate or predict where candidate Obama or McCain will go as President Obama or McCain (for example, I hardly need remind you of George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise).

That said, what we can actually argue about in terms of hard numbers and analysis is relying on Alex Brill and Alan Viard. For an explanation of how flawed their methods are and how their results are dishonest, I turn you over to economist Jonah Gelbach. Ironically, Prof. Gelbach teaches a class called "Statistics for Lawyers." Given the preposterous way you characterize the so-called "numbers," it's a course you could stand to take.

From Prof. Gelbach:

"From what I can tell, the Brill-Viard piece, titled "The Folly of Obama’s Tax Plan", is one of those screeds meant to confuse rather than inform.

1. According to Brill and Viard, the chart Mankiw posts shows

"the marginal rates in 2009 for a two-earner couple with two children—a college freshman and a 12-year-old receiving after-school care—under some specific assumptions"

Now, when you see someone relying on a special case like a two-earner couple with two children, one of whom is a college freshman and the other is exactly 12 and receiving after-school care, you know there's cherry-picking going on. Here, Brill and Viard are clearly trying to maximize the impact of tax-credit phaseout rules on marginal tax rates. And they don't tell us what their "some specific assumptions" are. Judge for yourself whether it's fair to take this one special case and call it "Obama's Tax Plan".

2. Brill and Viard are very helpful to readers, asking and answering the question "What accounts for the higher rates?" (they mean the ones in their cherry-picked chart, specifically). Here's part of their explanation (emphasis added):

First, Obama expands the maximum child and dependent care credit for families with one young child from $1,050 to $1,500 and phases down the credit over a longer income range, from $30,000 to $58,000. Throughout this income range, the credit is phasing out at a rate of $30 per $1,000 of income, thus raising the effective tax rate by 3 percentage points. Obama also makes certain credits refundable, which introduces a tax penalty of 10 percent or 15 percent, depending on the income bracket.

To understand how deeply dishonest the Brill-Viard piece is, you need only recognize that each of these three examples is a case in which Obama's plan increases the after-tax-and-transfer income available to the people at issue. The rest of their explanation involves Obama's proposal to increase the maximum of the current Hope Scholarship Tax Credit for college from $1,800 to $4,000 while keeping the same phaseout range. Three comments:

1. When a plan "expands" a credit's maximum, it is increasing the credit's generosity, not decreasing it.
2. When a plan "phases down the credit over a longer income range", it is increasing the credit's generosity, not decreasing it.
3. When a plan "makes certain credits refundable", it is increasing those credits' generosity, not decreasing it.

Marginal tax rates rise under Obama's plan in this cherry-picked example (assuming that Brill and Viard haven't cooked the numbers themselves) because credits have to be phased out at higher incomes, or else everyone will receive them, making them much more expensive. This is hardly a new concept, and Greg Mankiw surely understands it well. If he and the AEI distortion machine wanted to have an honest debate on Obama's tax plan, they could discuss its cost, or they could provide an honest argument over why they think the disincentive effects of higher marginal rates outweigh the benefits of increasing disposable income for lower and middle income folks.

Instead, their argument boils down to making a big deal about the fact that disincentive effects....exist! That sort of observation won't win you the Nobel prize.

The key point that Brill and Viard neglect to note or discuss is that even in their cherry picked example, higher marginal tax rates bring along offsetting benefits to families with lower and middle incomes. If the families don't change their behavior, their disposable income will be higher, not lower, under Obama's plan. If they do change their behavior, then by revealed preference, these families will still be better off, since every supposedly nefarious change in the tax code that Brill and Viard mention is an expansion in generosity. Revealed preference says that you can't be made worse off by having more options. This is a question of basic microeconomics.

It's also a question of basic honesty.

An honest article meant to inform would show both the marginal tax rates graph and a graph of after-tax-and-transfer income against pre-tax-and-transfer income. I assure you that there is a very good reason that Brill and Viard don't include that second graph. Of course, a really honest article wouldn't cherry pick the way Brill and Viard did, either."

To David Lat -- I support your attempts to bring relevant election-year issues to the blog. I really would enjoy a unbiased and fact-driven comparison of both the Obama and McCain tax plans (as well as their positions on other law related issues such as corporate governance, tort reform, bankruptcy, and so on). What I and many other will not abide is this admitted partisan hack Ted Frank passing on uninformed and dishonest "analyses" as fact.

So its 2:50 and there hasn't been a single post by Lat himself today? What is he doing, planning an elaborate inauguration for the new EIC'?

BigLaw to effectively 100K!

Dear 31:

The answer is not "(e)" [limo liberal supporters jumping ship]--Obama just raised $7.8 million this week-end alone in CA--most of it in large checks to the DNC.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_I_will_win.html

Pointing out Obama's inconsistencies on non-tax issues is not partisan in this case, it only serves to underscore Frank's final conclusion: no one knows what Obama will do on taxes. In his post a few months ago, Frank argued that he could calculate the tax hit and gave it to us. In this post, he is arguing that he can no longer do that because Obama has (i) changed his tax plan and presented inconsistent versions and (ii) changed so many other positions, that the net result of (i) and (ii) is that good scholarship leads you to conclude that you cannot predict Obama's plan anymore.

Any critical-thinking observer would come to the same conclusion, unless he/she was drikning the Kool-aid.

41: Right, we should all buy into the Dem bullshit that only the uberrich and heiresses will be hurt by these tax cuts. In reality, this tax scheme will slide a huge, ungreased dildo into the collective colon of the middle class. It sucks that I have to pay full price for my kids' college. They're 2 and 4 right now, and I'm hoping to put away a $350k for each of them because who knows what tuition will be like in 2025. Neither of them will see a dime in financial aid unless they win merit based scholarships. Now, on top of that, I have to shell out an additional $50k per year to pay for other peoples' kids? I'm really sick of people thinking I'm rich. I'm even sicker of working my ass off and doing the right things in life when my only reward more taxes/less social support for my family. I honestly should have drank more beer in college and skipped law school. If I were making $50k per year working 9-5 managing a Target or Home Depot, I'd have about the same standard of living and 100% less stress.

54: I think you meant tax HIKES, but I'm feelin you.

18, 47 -
if it really were a matter of "enough said," you would not have said it twice.

36, please tell me you are joking...no one can be that dumb. What you are advocating is equivalent to outright theft. Do you really think people will sit by and do nothing while the tyrannical majority steals their money? Look at it like this: if Obama Bin Laden's tax hikes will cost a wealthy person an extra $2 million, it would be rational for him to spend any amount up to $2 million to try and fight it. One last comment: if you want to pay more in taxes, go ahead...but do not impose your morality on me. Thanks.

Obama, apparently, as a "pragmatist" as in will say/do/promise anything to win:

“RENO, Nev. — Barack Obama on Sunday met with — and defended — one of the primary financers of the group that was perhaps most responsible for sinking Sen. John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid.

“Obama huddled privately with T. Boone Pickens in a small conference room in the bowels of a casino hotel to discuss the legendary Texas energy trader’s much-publicized energy policy proposal.

“But while the two men posed for pictures before the meeting, Obama was asked how it felt to be meeting with the man “who tore down” Kerry’s campaign.

“Pickens, who gave $3 million to the anti-Kerry 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, smiled awkwardly as Obama fielded the question.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12591.html

Riiiiight. I mean St. John McCain has never flip flopped on anything before. Definitely never flip flopped on taxes. Never never never.

I mean, when we voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (multiple times) he mistakenly told the Senate Clerk that he was voting "no" instead of "Hells Yeah!!!!!"

33

You should have got a scholarship to Harvard like I did.

33

You should have got a scholarship to Harvard like I did.

Here is a better compromise:

All of you bleeding heart liberals can pay higher taxes AND pay the tax increase for the rest of us who do not agree.

Sounds fair.

48: I grew up in a poor household, with a dad who was a public school teacher during the day, tutored at night, and we all got up at 4 a.m. to throw papers (as there were four kids and my mom stayed at home to take care of us). We were by no means upper middle class and, during at least part of my life, arguably weren't middle class.

As for legitimately working...yes, I worked three jobs during college to pay my own living expenses, while also taking 15-19 hours a semester and still graduating magna in two majors, and also had a minor.

So, I'm standing up, and I'm not voting for Obama because I'd like to keep more of my money. If for no other reason than I use it to help my family.

Are you finished?

@ 59 I'm not worried about the flip flopping. Reasonable people don't set their beliefs in stone and ignore changing circumstances. Reasonable people change their views on issues when the facts change. But what Obama's doing is different. He's flip flopping not because the situation has change; he's flip flopping to pander. There's a big difference, and if that doesn't give you a little pause, we might as well start the coronation today.

i just hope the lorraine motel in memphis invites obama to speak...until that happens read up socialists...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html

Changing your mind, if you're truly thoughtful and smart, doesn't happen as quickly and often as it does with Obama. If you were truly smart and thoughtful, you would have come to a better, longer lasting (longer than, say, a month or two) conclusion.

Not necessary #65; plenty of room for criticism without veiled assassination threats.

--Bitter former Memphian

Dear 49:

If you " really would enjoy a unbiased and fact-driven comparison of both the Obama and McCain tax plans (as well as their positions on other law related issues such as corporate governance, tort reform, bankruptcy, and so on)", then why not sit down and write one, and submit it to ATL for posting?

If Ted Frank is an "admitted partisan hack ...passing on uninformed and dishonest ‘analyses’ as fact" you must have already performed that analysis, so please enlighten us.

Law students, go into tax law.

This is such poor, flamebaiting drivel. This site is really going way downhill. It doesn't actually "update [the] earlier posts" with an updated forecast/spreadsheet. It doesn't examine one candidate's tax plan in comparison to the other candidate's tax plan. In fact, it doesn't examine either candidate's tax plan. For Obama it just references a few speeches, and for McCain it... does nothing. McCain's tax plan and its likely effects for lawyer salaries is not examined at all. I'm not sure whether Ted Frank even knows what McCain's tax plan is, aside from an erroneous implicit assumption that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts counts as a 'plan.'

What else? A number of unsourced factual assertions are blatantly wrong; for sources on other assertions we get things like links to a conservative newspaper's editorial page; an admission at the end that all opinions are based on "back-of-napkin" numbers and are basically valueless; et cetera.

Oh, and: the whole post is written by someone whose rent money is paid by a McCain advisor.

In sum, the post is poorly written, poorly sourced, and utterly biased. It comes off like a pre-coffee rant my Republican coworkers sometimes send me (and like ones I sometimes send them about McCain). Real professional, Lat.

64,

59 here. Oh. I see. McCain flip flops and now supports Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Perfectly fine you say. Change in the situation? Sure. Makes sense.

Obama flip flops = evil Democrat.

McCain's statements concerning the 2001 tax cuts were exactly correct when he said them in 2001. But, since he had to "pander" to Republican primary voters in 2007-2008, of course that isn't a flip flop.

What was I thinking?

AND TO 65...THERE IS A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL RESERVED FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

So, has anyone done the calculation of the break-off point for the $250,000 joint income? Say my husband and I each make $125,001--we pay the tax for couples making over $250,000. If I voluntarily choose to lower my salary to $124,008, then we as a couple bring home more money, right? But where's the break-point where we maximize the bring-home amount?

48: One does not have to be a lawyer to be middle class.

One can get a job doing just about anything and after 5-10 years experience can make at least $50k.

Carpenders, machinests, factory workers, plumbers, electricians, secretaries, policeman, firemen, military, ect... require no college education and pay enough to be middle class.

Also, heaven forbid that someone actually get two jobs and work more than 40 hours per week.

Again, there are no hardworking poor people.

#45, LOL. ATL clearly went out of its way to find an impartial "analyst" to write about this issue. I couldn't find an inkling of bias in that whole post, or the poster's background for that matter.

Hey ATL, tomorrow can we get someone from a left-wing think tank to opine on the topic? Maybe even give them three different posts like you did this genius.

48, I'm standing up too. I put myself through Catholic high school by selling Kirby vacuum cleaners door to door after school for tuition money. My parents both worked full time jobs, and most of my life my dad worked two jobs. I continued to work 20-30 hours to put myself through college and law school. My family never took food stamps. We never took handouts. My dad because he was primarily self-employed paid double on his social security taxes. I didn't want to pay more in taxes then, and now that I'm finally making decent money, I don't want to pay it now. I never felt entitled to other people's money then, and I don't feel others are entitled to my money now.

71: Don't you think that the most evil people would actually get better treatment in hell than run-of-the-mill evil people? If so, is that special place called Club Med?

The fact that Frank supports McCain does not mean that his analysis is inaccurate. Rather than bashing the messenger - as is typical of liberals - why don't you pro-Obama people offer evidence to the contrary. And as has been said before, Obama is not raising taxes to balance the budget. He wants to raise taxes to redistribute wealth and partially offset his massive spending proposals.

It is funny how Obama people are forced to resort to personal attacks though - or irrelevant attacks on Bush - since Obama has no experience or background to fall back on.

This probably isn't the place to ask this question, but can't the social security situation be resolved much less painfully by changing immigration quotas? The entire situation seems to boil down to an eventual demographic problem where there will be too many retirees per worker. That will cause many macro-economic problems beyond potential social security insolvency. Given that our population would currently be shrinking but for immigration one possible solution could be increasing immigration limits to offset the generational size differential. The changes could be targeted as necessary to enable balanced growth and avoid unduly harming any particular political contingency.

Interestingly, other than suggesting all Republicans serve in Iraq (which I would do, but for the huge loans I have to pay back), no liberals have discussed all of the great causes they support with their own money and their own time. So, unless government has the money, you're happy to keep it and not use it for "good causes." (And, I'm not counting art museums or PETA, I'm talking about causes that help people).

49: No one is is an "independent" when deciding a presidential candidate. And, if you are, you are so stupid that your vote should not count. The two candidates are polar opposites. Where's the decision to be made.

It's like saying, I'm not sure what to eat for dinner. I'm a vegan, but I'm deciding between salad or steak. Right. I wonder which you'll choose.

If you want to see a non-partisan study of both candidates tax proposals, see here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf.

"So, has anyone done the calculation of the break-off point for the $250,000 joint income? Say my husband and I each make $125,001--we pay the tax for couples making over $250,000. If I voluntarily choose to lower my salary to $124,008, then we as a couple bring home more money, right? But where's the break-point where we maximize the bring-home amount?"

Tax brackets aren't a strict jump at a strict income figure, they're eased in. Same as the rebate checks were if you were over the full-rebate income level but not by a ton, they were reduced but not completely gone. Taxes work the same way, you don't suddenly go from 20% to 30% just because you earned an extra dollar.

To echo 71. Here is the old McCain on what the Bush tax cuts the New McCain supports:

"“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP. FLIP FLOP.

78--The GOP can never, ever endorse a plan that allows more dark skinned people into American than the status quo. We build walls to keep them out, not to let them in.

48: I stand up too.

I worked through high school, college, AND law school and paid for the two latter with earnings from working at least 20 hours a week while studying full time and made up the rest with loans.

I was not born lucky and I earned it every step of the way. Just because you were born and raised that way does not mean a majority of successful people are.

I would argue that people from a blue collar or economically disadvantaged background are more successful because they do in fact work hard to get everything that they have.

"Now that Obama has clinched the nomination and is pretending to be a centrist for the general election, after the Wall Street Journal hit him hard about it, Obama pushed everything he promised in the primaries overboard."

Gee, now why would anyone think that you might be a right-wingnut using Lat's bully pulpit to hack for McCain? Wouldn't an evenhanded neutral describe Obama as "pretending to be a centrist"? Wouldn't an evenhanded neutral be an opposition researcher for McCain?

All those naysayers must be overreacting to preceived slights due to their deep-seated insecurity over their candidate...or maybe just paying attention.

This is nothing more than economic swift boating. Ted Frank = Jerome Corsi w/ numbers = TTT.

86: Get your own website if you don't like how this one's run, fag.

86 - Thank you for your cogent contribution to this debate.

70- You fail at reading comprehension. Frank's volunteer work for the McCain advisor is unpaid.

Don't worry, Obama will pay someone from the government to read for you, so you don't have to.

This is a great post b/c the author clearly has no axe to grind!

Heh, enjoyed reading the vitriolic comments... makes me happy I'm no longer in law school. Frank's on a bit of a crusade, but his underlying point is correct: for 90-95% of the readers of this blog, taxes will almost certainly increase under Obama. I think the increase will prolly be fairly close to Frank's prediction. But whether that's a good or bad thing is for your own broader political views.

90: This comment is great because the poster clearly made up his/her mind before reading the article.

/See how easy it is?

To paraphrase this "update":

"Obama has come out with a hard proposal that pretty much undermines my entire previous assessment. Therefore, I'm going to spin Obama's plan like the political hack I wish I was important enough to be."

What a COMPLETE and TOTAL hack. How about you find someone who is NOT advising the McCain campaign offer up something more credible than your blather on Obama's tax policies.

Here's a nonpartisan factcheck on your bogus $32,000 claim and here's another that touches on some of your other distortions (not surprisingly, some of the same distortions McCain's camp is embracing).

An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans
Tax and fiscal policy will loom large in the next president's domestic policy agenda. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. The individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) threatens to ensnare tens of millions of Americans in a web of pointless complexity and higher taxes, but a permanent fix palatable to both political parties has proven elusive. In the past year, the federal budget deficit has ballooned, and, more worrisome, large projected increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will put unprecedented demands on federal government revenue sources in the coming decades.

Fundamental reform of our tax system is one way to resolve these problems, but, at least in part because reform creates both winners and losers, the leading presidential candidates have not addressed it seriously. Nonetheless, both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation's tax laws. Senator McCain would permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, increase deductions for taxpayers supporting dependents, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and allow immediate deductions for investments in certain capital equipment. Senator Obama would permanently extend certain provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting taxpayers with incomes under $250,000 but repeal the cuts in the top two marginal income tax rates ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2010; increase the maximum rate on capital gains; raise the top tax rate on qualified dividends from its current level (but keep it below pre-2001 levels); and enact new and expanded targeted tax breaks for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently and increase the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax and lowered the tax for others, and in our interpretation of his proposal, Senator Obama would also extend the patch. Each candidate would also increase the estate tax exemption and reduce the estate tax rate compared with current law in 2011 and beyond, although Senator McCain would cut the tax much more than Senator Obama. Finally, each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.9 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $600 billion and Senator McCain's proposals lose a similar amount.

The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. Under Senator McCain's proposed policies, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group-seniors -and an already favored activity-homeownership-which could probably be better directed elsewhere.

In several important ways, the candidates' speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we've outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible. Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system. The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral. The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind. We estimated the cost of Senator McCain's plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator's plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Senator Obama says he would subject high-income taxpayers to additional taxes "in the range of 2 to 4 percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee)" starting "a decade or more from now" to help shore up Social Security. Nonetheless, his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal. We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately. Under those assumptions, the Senator's proposals would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over 10 years, or about $390 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749

"an adviser to the McCain campaign"

WHY ISN"T THIS DISCLAIMER AT THE TOP???

"an adviser to the McCain campaign"

WHY ISN"T THIS DISCLAIMER AT THE TOP???

I see assassination references, calling someone a fag...Nazis? ... Anyone?

Apparently this doesn't accept HTML, so here are those factcheck links:

(1) http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html

(2) http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

#97, because some of us aren't stupid rookies who stumbled across ATL while drooling over Obama google hits. Frank's political leanings aren't a secret.

2: If you're gonna leave a "First" comment, have a set and leave off the question mark. Your punctuation indicates weakness and uncertainty.

Obama defenders are only capable of slandering the messenger - which is pointless for this post. THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS THAT NOBODY CAN TELL WHAT OBAMA IS GOING TO DO ABOUT TAXES IF HE IS ELECTED.

I personally don't subscribe to the notion that, if Obama is elected, he will raise taxes to this crazy break-neck level. The people of this country would simply not stand for federal taxes at 45%. This is similar to my belief of why the supreme court will never turn over Roe v. Wade, that decision is now ingrained in our culture. There are political dreams, and political realities, in this case if Obama wants to be president he won't be able to kill his people with taxes...at least not without major opposition from the legislative branch.
I personally am considering voting for Obama because his intention to end the war in Iraq is genuine. The war is a huge financial blunder for this nation.

"The people of this country would simply not stand for federal taxes at 45%"

Wrong. The "people" will just sit there and take it as usual (Bill Clinton raised upper tax bracket at 39.6% and higher capital gains tax "the people" took it)

"This is similar to my belief of why the supreme court will never turn over Roe v. Wade"

Wrong. Have you looked at the mark-up of the current court? Their narrow interpretation of the constitution does not have regard for the impact on society.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and "My colleagues Alex Brill and Alan Viard have calculated the marginal tax rates under Obama's various promises of phased-out credits"--that calculation is for a married couple with two kids 6-7 years apart in age (older one in college) making under $125k combined--i.e., a set of circumstances totally at odds with those of Mr. Frank's audience here.

Obama Moves in Right Direction on Taxes - Larry Kudlow, RealClearPolitics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obama_moves_in_the_right_direc.html

#105, I hope you don't cite to cases in legal memos the same way you cited Kudlow's column.

Among other criticisms:
"The cost of capital would rise under Obama and investment returns would decline by more than 11 percent. Uncle Sam will keep more and investors will retain less, all while the economy is languishing."

102,

You are slandering Obama defenders with this:

"Obama defenders are only capable of slandering the messenger - which is pointless for this post. THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS THAT NOBODY CAN TELL WHAT OBAMA IS GOING TO DO ABOUT TAXES IF HE IS ELECTED. "

If the point of the post is what you suggest, it could have been a whole lot shorter then, right?

Something along the lines of this:

Ted Frank on Obama and Taxes:

"NOBODY CAN TELL WHAT OBAMA IS GOING TO DO ABOUT TAXES IF HE IS ELECTED. "

Lat -- stop recycling!

I don't come to this blog to read superficial political analysis from one perspective, no matter the pespective. There are many other sites on the intertubes for that. A post like this might start a catfight in the comments section but it's pretty unremarkable and not noteworthy. If this is just a general current events blog then maybe can we talk about Michael Phelps or something.

Dear 106:

I cited Kudlow's column by its published title.

--NOT an Obama supporter.

60/61. I think you mean "Should have gotten a scholarship to Harvard," like you obviously didn't given your inability to effectively communicate using the English language.

gg, sir. See you in the next thread.

98, there were a couple of "facist" comments...close enough?

the question for biglaw obama supporters is how much is his winning worth to you? let's say it's not going to cost you $32k annually. Let's say it's only $10k ($40k over 4 years; $80k over 8 yrs, not counting potential investment returns). Are you still for Obama? If so, at what point would your taxes become too high for you to support him?

103, when I mentioned that people would not stand for taxes at 45% I didn't mean that they would rise up in some form of violent revolution. Just like when Clinton was president the congress shifted to become strongly republican, and if Obama is elected and raises taxes the congress will once again become strongly republican.

Also, I didn't say that the Supreme Court currently is influenced by society in general. I said that our country has the Roe v. Wade decision ingrained into our culture. By your logic if the 9 could find a constitutional reason to reinstate slavery they would, that would be absurd. I didn't want to turn this into a debate on abortion laws; rather I simply wanted to illustrate my belief that the people of this country will not stand for certain things, and over time the problems will be fixed by the means we have available to us.

D-bag blogged: "under Obama's various promises of phased-out credits, and find that he will raise effective marginal federal income tax rates to as high as 45% -- which is well over 60% for people living in high-tax states like New York or California or the District of Columbia."

Really? Is California's marginal tax rate "well over" 15%? Really? I mean, he wrote it, but is it true?

"In California, for instance, the rate begins at 1% at $6,622 in income and rises to 9.3% over $43,468. In 2005, California added a mental health tax of 1% on incomes greater than $1 million, making the marginal income tax rate in California 10.3% at the extreme income ranges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax

So my question is, why would you lie about this? Or not bother to check your facts? If you're overstating California's tax rate by about 80%, what else in this article are you lieing about?

113: Good point.

I would like to add, how many expect to have a household income of $250k in the next 4 to 8 years (if you don't have it already)?

The tax penalties go much higher after this threshold.

113's post is a false way to look at it. If I know Obama is going to raise my taxes $10k, that doesn't mean it would "cost" me $10k if Obama is collected. It's not like the US is going to collect that money from someone else (not me) if McCain is elected. If you believe McCain then you have to realize that money will come from somewhere else? But where? At some point taxes have to be raised -- on somebody --to cover the massive increase in government costs.

114: You missed MY point. The "people" are sheep and are powerless.

Hope this helps.

98/112:

See “Obama vs. the lunatic fringe”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0817pageaug17,0,542913.column

“So you think the chorus of white hate groups is seething with rage that Barack Obama could become president? Think again.”

Or spending has to be cut, 117.

117: Cut programs = less need for tax revenue = me happy = welfare fans sad. It's pretty simple actually.

Shorter 48 and 85:

I walked to school 5 miles uphill each way with no shoes and in a blizzard!!!

121,

If you've been asleep your entire life, then it is really simple. I mean, I remember the last time spending was slashed so as to avoid a tax increase. In fact, it was just the other day (errr....century.)

It is perfectly easy to theorize about balancing the budget by cutting spending, but do you expect elected officials to do that?

Also, take a look at the yearly cost of the Iraq war vs. the year cost of welfare....you might be a tad surprised.

107, sorry for my length in post. I simply was trying to point out that if you're going to defend Obama have a better agenda then Ted Frank sucks... Essentially I'm trying to support Obama by showing that he is more than simply tax increases. What is hugely important to me is that he ends the war in Iraq. I addressed the tax increase issue by making a point that Obama could wish to raise taxes 200% but the people of this country wouldn't stand for it. Therefore, as long as we the people have the power to elect our congress we can fight against insane taxes increases. The war in Iraq is extremely heavily influenced by the executive branch, and in order to stop it we must have an executive that wants to stop it. I realize this isn't a perfect system and if Obama is elected taxes will more than likely go up, we don't know by how much though. (I know, this is another long post, if it's too long then don't read it, and if you've already read this it's too late :) ) .

121 here.

The second full paragraph is missing a phrase:

"It is perfectly easy to theorize about balancing the budget by cutting spending, but do you expect elected officials to do that CONSIDERING THAT THEIR PRIMARY MOTIVATION IS RE-ELECTION?"

Cancel Social Security! (Phew, that was easy.)

If it were up to Ted Frank, we'd all be out of jobs anyway, making the whole question of marginal tax rate pretty moot.

" I addressed the tax increase issue by making a point that Obama could wish to raise taxes 200% but the people of this country wouldn't stand for it. Therefore, as long as we the people have the power to elect our congress we can fight against insane taxes increases"

Wake up. What are you, a freshman poli-sci major?

I am willing to bet that are taxes are higher now than they were at the start of the revolutionary war.

The middle class is looking at around a 20-25% effective income tax rate, around 7% social security tax, state taxes, property taxes, 50 cent gasoline tax, 5 to 8% sales taxes, and on and on.

Get a clue. "The people" will do nothing. Not to mention none of this happens overnight or with one piece of legislation, rather it occurs incrementally 2 to 4% at a time, which makes it less noticeable until one day you wake up and you are paying 50-60% of your income in taxes.

117, this is 113.

Not denying that the fed gov't has financial problems, but rather than concluding that the gov't does not know how to manage money and giving it less, Obama seems to always conclude that the solution is to give the gov't more money and increase its role in the economy generally.

The alternative is to admit that gov't has limitations. This is a difficult thing to do when you are campaigning for office. It is much easier to do what Obama is doing (and McCain is doing as well, to a lesser degree), which is to promise everyone everything, without being particularly specific or consistent, and worst of all, to promise that all of it will be paid for by someone else.

113 -- Your point would be valid if your effective tax rate was your only measure against income.

If Obama's economic plan as a whole (including his tax policy) is better than McCain's, if measured by potential for your after-tax income.

Compare how Biglaw lawyers fared under Clinton versus under W. Bush.

When Clinton took office in 1993, Biglaw starting salaries were at $70,000 (they had been at that level for 5 years). By the time Clinton left office 8 years later, salaries were starting at $125,000. That's a 78.5% increase in salary.

Under W. Bush, salaries began at $125,000, and barring a miracle, will end up at $160,000 at the end of his term. This is only a 28% increase.

Whose tax and economic plan is Obama's more similar to? Whose is McCain's more similar to?

Now ask yourself: Would I rather have a 78% increase in salary over the next 8 years coupled with a 5% increase in tax burden? Or would I rather a modest 28% increase and no changes in taxes?

I'll vote for Obama -- it's best the country and best for me.

voting for president based on social/economic decisions that are controlled by congress = TTT

if you want lower taxes vote for the president that will throw less money at the military, ie a president that would cut the 8.8 billion spent on "missile defense" which is more unnecessary now than it was 20 years ago...

124,

107 here.

I wasn't saying that your post was too long. Instead, I was saying that Frank's article could have been a whole lot shorter. You're right about the point that he was trying to convey and that point could have been conveyed by Frank in around two sentences absent all the needless attacks re: flip-flopping and the downright deception re: tax increases on individuals making more than 32K.

As much as I despise Kudlow, at least he cites facts unlike the useless crap cited by the "legal guy who was running back-of-the-napkin numbers to see how the Obama tax plan would affect me and my domestic partner and sharing the results with ATL."

I shouldn't be trashing Frank. Instead, I should be trashing Lat for punishing this useless drivel.

Cancel Social Security! (Phew, that was easy.)

"The alternative is to admit that gov't has limitations. This is a difficult thing to do when you are campaigning for office"

You should add...when you are a democrat.

You are incorrect otherwise, because that is precisely what a conservative is (i.e. less goverment control, less spending, less social programs).

The repubicans have been hijacked the past 8 years by Bush and the "social conservatives", who are conservative on social issues, but not government and fiscal issues like conservatives in the past have historically been. Not to mention they have tarnished the term conservative.

72 - That's not how our taxes work. What do you think the "marginal" in marginal tax rate means?

"(Even people making $45,000 will face a marginal income tax rate of 39%, which is 51.4% including social security taxes.)"

You're simply lying about this. SS taxes (well, actually FICA taxes) are 6.2%.

I'm sure if I looked at that the first clause I would find that you're lying there too.

If it's necessary to misrepresent the truth to prove your point, then there's something wrong.

Idiots sometimes think that exaggerating their arguments will make them more persuasive (e.g., "Obama will raise your taxes $100K and fuck your white wife!!"), but it's actually more persuasive if you stick to reciting things that are true.

130: I hope you are joking with that reasoning.

Otherwise, go back to your TTT law school and try to learn how to formulate a credible argument.

130, this is 113.

Clinton was lucky to be president during a once in a lifetime event (emergence of the internet). his fiscal policies had very little influence on the strength of the economy and its subsequent weakness after he left office. the best you can say of him is that his tax policy did not derail the 90s expansion. I don't see how anybody could claim he deserves credit for associate salaries going up. Also, it does not seem realistic to me that salaries will be going up at all in the next few years no matter who is president. given that the cost of living is going up, I think this presents a strong argument for wanting to be taxed less (or at least not more).

I'm always amazed at how frequently people want to ignore the truth that when taxes have been reduced, government income has gone up. The converse would be true--taxes increase and government income will reduce. What happens then? Raise taxes again to the same result?

137: during James Madison's term in office and the 1812 War, BigLaw salaries went from $40 a year to almost $90. That's over 100% increase.

In contrast, BigLaw salaries went up a measly 50% under Monroe to $205. I couldn't afford a new fire poker, much less stable.

Now, ask yourself who's more likely to promote the era of "good feeling."

The government is involved in subsidizing and regulating everything. There is no "free market" or "absence of government involvement." Big Auto became Big Auto because the government paid for highways. T. Boone Pickens is betting on wind-power because he's pumping money into federal wind-power subsidies. Conservatives like to believe that there are handouts for the poor, and the rest is merit. It's not a guestion of government subsidy, it's a question of what they're subsidising. Don't pretend that our economy isn't tied to what the government chooses to invest our tax dollars in. Whether we pump money into the hands of poor people or send expensive and worthless machines into space, that money drives the economy. It's a question of priorities. Reorder yours and give a dime to someone less well-off.

115,

you are missing a couple of items that are add into marginal tax rate including SS, real estate property tax and any local taxes. There is no doubt if Obama pushes the rate to 39.4% it will push some people's rate over 60% though their effective rate will be lower.

137 -- 130 here. Obviously (but apparently not to you), the argument was a tongue in cheek. It was meant not to show cause and effect, but to show that for all of whining and rolling about taxes, it's a pretty black and white way to look at the world. As an example, I cited the Clinton-Bush dichotomy. Under Clinton, biglaw associates got hosed in taxes, but our salaries were advancing so quickly, we actually did better, relatively than under Bush where we pay less tax. Again, not a cause and effect -- just point out the absurdity of electing someone solely because they promise tax cuts.

See also:

1988: "Read my lips: no new taxes" -- George H.W. Bush

1990: Raise taxes on the top bracket by 10%.

You lemmings buy into campaign promises too easily.

143: So we should side with the guy who promises to rape us instead of the guy who doesn't want to but probably will?

To the Obama supporters:

Can anyone offer a rational justification for Obama's proposed increase of the marriage tax penalty? Why should two married BIglaw associates pay substantially more in taxes than two unmarried Biglaw associates who live together?

And in anticipation - I don't want to hear how rich people ought to pay higher rates than poor folks, or why rich folks don't work as hard so don't deserve their money. In short, for purposes of this question, I am not interested in a defense of the progressive tax system.

I simply want to know why two married people should pay more in taxes than two co-habitating unmarried people who make the exact same total income.

Step right up, folks, and defend your man.

more feces

You know, there once was a time when ATL was about law firms and the follies of those who worked there (or hoped to one day), with the occasional worship of Monica G. on the side. If this op-ed piece is indicative of the new "editorial" direction ATL is taking, then there seems little point in continuing to come here.

Wonder what the site sponsors think?

@145. Oh come on. Can't you just buy that we need change? He has beliefs we can believe in! Step back and say it with me: YES WE CAN (UNCRITICALLY ACCEPT A CANDIDATE WHO HAS OFFERED NOTHING MORE THAN EMPTY RHETORIC).

1. You can't tax net worth. That's a taking.

2. For partners, who pay our salaries and who we want to be very well off so they can afford to give us raises, the Obama plan is devastating. Partners will see a 12.4% increase on all income over $97k. That's a ton of money- enough, at the average AmLaw firm, to pay an associate's salary.

3. O'Bama's a chameleon. Vote for his commie a$$ at your peril.

I'm a fiscally conservative Biglaw tax lawyer. I'll reluctantly pull the lever for McCain this year, and I'm pretty scared of the prospect of an Obama presidency for several reasons. But even I see that this was an inappropriate post for ATL.

There is a valid point to be made that, as of now, absolutely no one can tell what Obama's tax policy would be if he gets elected. And I'm glad that Frank updated his post to show loyal ATL readers that point. But Frank's belabored references to flip-flopping on other issues is obviously superfluous; detailing Obama's flip-flopping on fiscal issues is enough to make the point about Obama's tax plan.

The post is obviously partisan. It's therefore not in keeping with what appears to be a valued ATL tradition.

To 115: The reason is social security. If the federal income tax rate were 45%, then the combined federal-state rate for someone living in CA would be about 54.3% (actually - - a little less since state taxes can be deducted against federal). Add in 7% for social security and about 1% for medicare and the marginal rate could exceed 60% (if the ss cap were eliminated). Remember too that this does not include property taxes, sales taxes, hotel and airport taxes etc, which could put the total tax burden on a high earner well over 60%.

136, you're a stone-cold idiot. Your payroll tax for social security is 12.4%. Your employer pays half. If you're self employed, as are all partners and solo practitioners, you pay the whole thing. It's a big deal for lawyers.

And if you think making you 6.2% more expensive to employ won't chill future pay raises then you're a double-dumbass.

So, who else here is salivating thinking about the attack ads that the GOP is waiting to unleash on this goon? As soon as middle America realizes that Obama's past occupation as a community organizer is the exact same thing that Jesse Jackson does for a living, the ship is going to sink. The wolf is in the sheep's clothing right now, but the chickens will come home to roost. Obama's race-bating, poverty-pimping side will soon be revealed.

140 -

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Great post. 140 to EIC of ATL!

I think 150 is on to something.

Ted Frank = Sophist?

And to follow up #151's post, #136 "lies" about FICA taxes being 6.2%. FICA actually breaks down into SS (@ 6.2%) and Medicare (@ 1.45%) for a net FICA tax of 7.65%. Of course I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those numbers... but someone accusing another of lying ought to be more careful to check the facts.

153--I'm thinking it'll be game over as soon as they juxtapose Barack with Fr. Pfleger with the "I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!" playing in the back ground. Sure, everyone with a brain has heard this speech before, but the average American voter doesn't have one. As soon as they see how radical Obama and his friends are, gg n00b.

Enough of the political/partisan topics on this site. I'm removing ATL from my bookmarks. If I wanted partisan hackery I'd go to Kos or RedState.

153: Wait until it's revealed that McCain finished at the bottom of his class in Annapolis - presumably guarenteeing that he couldn't become a fighter pilot - and then his daddy made him a pilot. He proceeded to perform miserably, crashing several planes. He then went on to get promoted without cause and has never looked back since. He's a chump who took a beating. He's no hero.

159--Middle America is far more comfortable with incompetence and under-achievement than radicalism.

"There is a valid point to be made that, as of now, absolutely no one can tell what Obama's tax policy would be if he gets elected."

Except for the fact that, as Ted Frank notes in the post, "Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times in three years".

In addition, since when is a candidate’s ability to obfuscate his true intentions reassuring?

Obama is the stealth candidate whose past votes and positions belie his current ones.

142: This asshat wrote: "he will raise effective marginal federal *income* tax rates to as high as 45% -- which is well over 60%. . . "

He was talking about "income" tax rates. htfh!

Obama = Marx.

@ 159- So we're weighing a hero helping his son become a hero v. inner-city race and poverty politics? Geeze, that's a tough one. . .

How does getting tortured make you a hero? Honestly? He made propaganda videos for Vietcon. Take the gloss off of "soldier" and we have someone who got beat up. How does that make him more qualified to lead? Setting aside the fact that he was unqualified for his position in the Navy.

The greatest irony of this election will be when a bunch of racist rednecks hand Obama a huge defeat in November, effectively saving NY Biglaw partners from an income/social security tax massacre.

And come on, even if you're anti-Obama you know that's the truth.

165: I look forward to seeing the ad that you and your ilk are preparing. But, unfortunately for you, McCain will not be swiftboated.

165: Being a hero is not a leadership quality. That said, you have to be a pretty big asshole to pretend that McCain wasn't a hero. The "propaganda" he "made" was only because his father was an admiral, and he only gave in after four days of torture. He even tried to kill himself first. Think about that--he would have rather taken his own life than produce propaganda. If that's not a hero, I don't know what is.

165: So says the boy whose daddy gave him his wings and finished last at school. Could be true, could be false.

168: So says the boy whose daddy gave him his wings and finished last at school. Could be true, could be false.

152: Well, the analysis is about biglaw associates, so the empoyer pays the other half. If you think that the employer's half should be imputed to the employee, then we get to subtract that tax burden from the employer's side, right? Somehow I suspect you chalk-up 13% (or whatever) on both sides when you think about how repulsive taxation is.

And as long as we're doing that, we'd better impute the corporate tax to the corporations' natural person end customers, right?

Let's change the headline to "OMG, OMG, BHO proposes marginal tax rates of 88%!!! John McCain proposes 17% flat tax! OMG!"

THE TRAGIC PART HERE IS BOTH OF THESE TAX PLANS FUCK THE COUNTRY.

In the right corner we have McCain, who will let drift the marginal rate, reinforcing a negatively progressive (not regressive, negatively progressive) tax system. Despite all of the arguments about this stimulating revenue, it will fall flat. Tax cuts stimulate revenue in the short term and have the opposite effect in the long term (see Wolff, Rutten, & Bayers; Kiplingers; CBPP; CBO). Buried in all of this is the deficit and spending. McCain, for all of his budget hawk talk, has only proposed to freeze non-military discretionary spending, which will save (are you ready for it?) a whopping $15bn. That ought to balance the budget right up. Aside from being politically impossible (where's he going to get the congressional support?), it represents one-time 3% savings. Which is moot, cause we it won't happen in the first place. Great job there Q-tip.

In the left corner we have Obama. Raise taxes on the people who fuel the economy in order to stem a recession? Really? Obama should have wandered out of the law classrooms when he taught at UChicago and spent a few days at the economics school. Lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes is laudable, but low taxes isn't of much use to people with no jobs and thus no taxable income.

Lest I sound like all whine and no cheese, here's the cheese:

Since the elasticity of taxable income is low for middle and low income earners (~0.2), and even lower for real income, and much higher for high income earners (~0.6), why not keep the marginal rates low for high income earners--thus keeping revenues from that source--and give a large grant (if you like McGovern, a "demogrant") to low and middle income earners, which grant would be phased out at higher income levels. Alternatively, we can take Seaz & Gruber's similar approach and just tax the grant: "the optimal system for most redistributional preferences consists of a large demogrant that is rapidly taxed away for low income taxpayers, with lower marginal rates at higher income levels."

169, 170: We don't have to take McCain at his word - the other guys who were held prisoner with him, and indeed, some of his captors, corroborate his story.

Which is why he won't be swiftboated. Swiftboating, recall, is when former colleagues come forward and say that your time with them was not as you now represent it. Kerry's former collegues felt his was mischaracterizing his Vietnam experience. McCain's fellow prisoners have corroborated his tales.

And yes, McCain is a hero. He refused early release from a situation that was horrible beyond imagination. That makes him a hero.

Would it make him a good president? Its undeniably a plus, but I imagine the more important criteria in answering that question is whether or not you agree with his policy proposals.

168: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Top Obama flip-flips:

1. SPECIAL INTERESTS. In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. THE CUBA EMBARGO. In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

3. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

4. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA. While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

5. NAFTA. During the primary season, Obama hammered Hillary Clinton for her support of NAFTA as First Lady, calling the free trade agreement "devastating" and "a big mistake." Now, in an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee said that NAFTA has indeed been positive for the US in some ways, and that his earlier criticism - while trying to convince white blue collar voters in some states to vote for him - was 'overheated and amplified.'

6. THE DEATH PENALTY. 10 years ago, when Obama was running for statewide office in an ultra-liberal Chicago district, he opposed the death penalty. As Obama announced this week, he now supports the ultimate penalty.

7. HANDGUN BAN. For 8 years—before becoming a US Senator—Obama sat on the board of a non-profit which contributed $2.7 million to efforts advocating for a complete ban on handguns. (Before that, Obama filled out a questionnaire in 1996 stating that he supported a ban on the manufacture, sale AND POSSESSION of handguns.) But starting with his primary campaign in the gun popular Midwest, Obama now opposes such legislation, and claims to support gun owner’s rights.

8. PROPOSED FISA LAW IMMUNITY FOR TELECOMS. In October, 2007, Obama pledged that if the FISA bill contained an immunity provision for telecoms, he would not only oppose the bill, he would help block it through a filibuster. This week, he voted for the bill, telecom immunity provisions and all.

9. PUBLIC FINANCING FOR OBAMA’S GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. In November, 2007, Obama issued a written pledge to opt into the public campaign finance system for the general presidential election, if the Republican nominee also did so. John McCain immediately accepted the pledge, which acceptance Obama acknowledged in writing in November 2007. After he became the Republican nominee, McCain opted into the public finance system (as he pledged to do), but Obama broke his pledge and opted out.

10. THE WAR IN IRAQ. In 2004—when Obama was running for the United States Senate-- Barack Obama not only said that he was open to a U.S. troop increase in Iraq, but warned against a premature troop withdrawal as a "slap in the face to the troops fighting there" which could make Iraq "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." Fast forward to Obama’s presidential campaign premised in large part on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

11. CAMPAIGN RAISING “SOFT MONEY” FROM BIG DONORS. Obama has regularly criticized politicians seeking large donations outside the framework of campaign finance regulations — so-called soft money — while touting the virtues of relying on small donations. But campaign officials last month reluctantly decided they had to take a hand in raising large donations from individuals, unions and corporations. Some of the donors get special bundles of perks, including use of the party suites at Denver’s Invesco Field, as well as special policy briefings by Obama advisors, choice hotel rooms and party invitations. Just this week-end, Obama raised $7.8 MILLION in three fundraisers in California alone—mostly in large checks payable to the DNC.

173: 169 & 170 's posts are just symptomatic of what's wrong with modern American politics. McCain's going to play dirty by invoking the race card. Obama's going to play dirty by pretending that McCain isn't a war hero. Neither will talk about whether the other is qualified to lead. It's why no matter who wins, we'll still get the same old crap.

-Resisting in the face of torture equals heroism
-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resisted in the face of toture
-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a hero

153 - i think you forgot to also mention that we are "closing the barn door after the cows got out" and that "we sowed the wind and we will reap the whirlwind"

cliche much?

174: A link to milfhunter.com would have provided more credible political analysis than that crap you just tossed out there. I didn't look, but I bet if you scoured that domain hard enough, you'd find links to UFO believer websites and the crazy hypercube dude. Insane people will allege insane things. Sane people won't take the allegations seriously. Which camp are you in?

@ 178: Learn to understand sarcasm and history, douche.

See http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm

174: That's just a site by guys who (claim) happen to be Vietnam vets and oppose McCain. Didja really think that everyone who served in Nam is a Rpublican?

Swiftboating is about guys who knew the candidate personally. The Swiftboat vets were Kerry's actual PT boat squad - guys who knew him well, served with him, and didn't think much of him. And it wasn't just one or two disgruntled sailors, it was the clear majority of his crew.

McCain's co-prisoners admire him greatly. Even some of his captors now say he was courageous.

179: You mean swiftboaters? Repeat a lie often enough...

162

Frank wrote: he will raise *effective* marginal federal income tax rates to as high as 45% -- which is well over 60%. . . "

In other words, if marginal tax rates revert to 39% as obama proposes, your salary will be *effectively* reduced by 60%. under obama you will be taxed as if 60% of your salary went to the fed, state or local government.

This revelation will hurt Obama's campaign far more than the uncertainty surrounding his tax plan:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obamas_hillbilly_half_brother

113 -- Obama simply wants to go back to Clinton's income tax rate for the highest bracket. This rate is still much lower than the rate was during the terms of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. A little historical context regarding the highest tax bracket to demonstrate this:

I start with the Great Depression and the New Deal:

1932-1935: 63% [this is the rate paid by those whose income falls in the top bracket]
1936-1939: 79%
1940: 81.1%
1941: 81%
1942-1943: 88%
1944-1945: 94% (peak of WWII)
1946-1947: 86.45%
1948-1949: 82.13%

Korean War:
1950: 84.36%
1951: 91%

Over 90% under Eisenhower:
1952-1953: 92%
1954-1963: 91%

LBJ lowers the rate:
1964: 77%
1965-1967: 70%

Vietnam rages on so the bracket is raised:
1968: 75.25%
1969: 77%
1970: 71.75%

Multiple brackets introduced:
1971-1981: 70%

Reagan lowered taxes but still 50% rate:
1982-1986: 50%
1987: 38.5% [Reagan never lowered taxes below this rate!]
1988-1990: 33%
1991-1992: 31%
1993-2000: 39.6% [Clinton; still significantly lower than under Reagan]
2001: 39.1%
2002: 38.6%
2003-2007: 35%

185: Your analysis is meaningless without knowing what the top income bracket is (today it's $250,000, but at various points in time it was higher) and fails to take into account the overall increase in the every other tax imaginable and the broadening of the tax base at various points in time.

Hope this helps.

Where do all of you right-wing Nazis come from? Did word get out on the Sean Hannity Show to jam ATL?

It's really disheartening to see all of the Republicans who have taken over this site. Please go to your little Young Republican Conventions, but go away from this site.

Note to Democrats on the Board: by denying the truth here you're not convincing anyone that Obama isn't. going to have tax policies substantially similar to those suggested here. Who cares if he's working with McCain, it doesn't make what he's saying untrue. You all act like your members of the Obama campaign and that you have to say stupid things at every turn. You're not part of Obama's campaign, so you can stop pretending you have a 33 IQ.

Also, my my my you kids bristle when it's pointed out that in the process of taking us "beyond politics" Obama sure has demonstrated he is one hell of a liar.

Come on - I see lots of Obama supporters here. No one wants to defend the marriage tax penalty?

What does that say about your candidate that he endorses a policy that even his most ardent supporters cant defend?

182 -- yeah, does that mean that Kerry got you and you believe him? hm. i was led to believe that he didn't engage the Swiftboaters. I guess you don't have to repeat a lie too often for it to be believed... John Kerry got you.

187 you're a nazi. national socialist. you're a nazi.

189 -- My family and tax law outlines both tell me that a tax system cannot simultaneously possess (i) progressivity; (ii) equality of treatment for all married couples earning the same total amount (i.e. $100,000 + $0 = $50,000 + $50,000); and (iii) equality of treatment for individuals and couples earning the same amount.

Our tax code sacrifices (iii) in favor of (i) and (ii). Seems like a reasonable choice to me.

#187,

What's up, rookie? New around here? Crawled away from the Huffington Post circle jerk and found that other websites aren't quite so uniform in opinion? Lat's been accused of leaning to the right for a while, and the traffic has reflected that for years.

Guys in my high school used to raise the income tax rates all the time. It was no big deal.

186: All I'm trying to show is the following two things:

1) Tax rates have needed to be raised during a time of war. Historically, a Republican presidents or a Republican Congress have understood this and have done so. It is unprecedented for the United States to be engaged in two wars (each lasting over 5 years) without raising taxes.

2) While the actual income amount that placed one in the top bracket varied, those at the very top have always carried the burden disproportionately. This is something that John McCain completely ignores. While one can argue that perhaps Obama's proposal of $250,000 and 39.5 percent is not ideal, the alternative would have to be a higher cut-off but also a higher tax rate to be paid. This debate would be welcome.

Here is a chart presenting the actual amount that constituted the top bracket: http://www.ntu.org/main/page_printable.php?PageID=19

I was pro clinton - enough liberal and closet republic tendencies to balance out in her

now i have 2 crappy choices and either will screw this country with far left or right bullshit.

This country is sputtering on all levels - politically, economically, and socially - intelligent but radical change is needed but not in idealogy but structural from our tax system, our education system, our health care system and our welfare system.......

this country has been mismanaged on all fronts for so long and now we have the ability to put someone else in power and they both SUCK and will only hasten the mismanagement. FAR right and LEFT agendas will screw this country - im slightly more scared of obama than I am of mccain and no Im not white or rich. So take that. I wont vote for any brown face just cuz its brown.

This whole post has convinced me of one thing: lawyers both Republican and Democratic are really bad at math and numbers (this includes you, Ted Frank) and probably should consider hiring someone to do their taxes.

Stick to the law, people. This includes you, Lat. I think everything on this site that has had any political whiff at all since January has been anti-Obama (or pro-Goodling in a few cases, I suppose). We get it. You don't like Obama.

189,

First of all, there is a difference between two married folk building wealth (and filing together) as opposed to two individuals with no direct legal connection to each other filing separate and apart from each other.

Second, this is not a defense of the marriage penalty. Instead, I think this illustrates the point that the general thrust of the article re: attacking Obama for flip flopping is absurd considering that McCain has done exactly the same thing.

Perhaps you should ask McCain supporters why he has voted at least three times against ending the Marriage penalty.

Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist's organization) is the source:

http://www.atr.org/content/html/mccainvotingrecord.html

196: Uh, actually it's far left v. balanced. The dem's have congress. They may win 60 seats in the Senate. With a democratic congress and not enough Senators for a filibuster, the left-wing wheels will spin out of control. At least with a republican in the White House, some veto control will be exercised.

So I'm supposed to trust the analysis of a guy who couldn't read real estate records properly when trying to write a hit piece on John Edwards? Even the NYT managed to write a successful hit piece of Edwards, Tad, yet you could not. Pathetic.

"(Still, commenters' reactions can best be described by Tyler Cowen's description of "Obama insecurity": "For some people no comment on Obama, other than the purely laudatory, is anything other than a hackish right-wing attempt to forge an alliance of lies with Karl Rove and his ilk.")"

"[Disclaimer / Disclosure: Since April, five weeks after I wrote the original ATL pieces, I have been doing unpaid volunteer work conducting research and interviews and writing memos for an adviser to the McCain campaign. I do not speak for the McCain campaign or for my day job employer.]"

In other words, commenters were right to doubt your objectivity.

The real story is that McCain stole that story about the cross in the dirt from Solzhenitsyn:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-cross-in--1.html

If this really happened, how come McCain didn't mention it until 1999? Did he forget this little anecdote for 27 years? He's often raved about Solzhenitsyn's work. Didn't he think it was miraculous that virtually the same thing happened to both he and his favorite author, when they were both imprisoned by Communists? Why would he keep that a secret?

So he lied in a church, huh?

Put this partisan tripe on your PERSONAL blog, Lat. Using "big firm lawyers make $160k and up" as your "legal angle" to a story about how tax policy can affect the rich would similarly justify any free-market/Federalist/economic-conservative propaganda or hit piece you want to publish on this site. Fucking weak.

Hey 48: F U.

My family didn't have shit while I was growing up, and I busted my ass through college (worked a full time job all 6 years) and law school (worked a full time job during law school too). I somehow managed to get into BigLaw and am trying to make a better life for my kids. But try having kids and one wage earner AND paying 60% marginal rate.

Screw you asshole. Higher taxes aren't big hit for you, but they sure as hell are for me and my family. You don't speak for me--I worked to get where I am, every step of the way.

STFU

STFU

Just saw an Obama commercial stating that he is going to "end tax breaks for oil companies" (i.e. raise taxes on them). Doesn't he realize that raising taxes on corporations means higher prices for consumers including the "working families" (whatever that means) whose interests he claims to protect on a daily basis?

Oh geez, you guys. You're acting like this guy has said something horribly dishonest by pointing out that a Democratic president would ass-rape the middle class. Oh noes, Democrats are acting like Democrats!!

Problem is, the Republicans' financial ass-rape is only slightly less bad because they're good enough to use lube. On the other hand, they double-rape you by substituting dime-store moralizing for actual policy -- so you end up trading SLIGHTLY lower taxes for LOTS less freedom and TONS more finger-wagging. Oh yeah, and hopefully you're not Muslim or Jewish -- or if you're Jewish, that you're at least that non-offensive not REALLY Jewish quasi-Christian "Jew" that they pretend that almost share a religion with, like the two have much of anything in common other than a few nifty stories. So, black Jewish lesbians... well, good luck to ya.

Yeah, great couple of "choices" we've got here.

Frankly, I fucking hate this joke of an election. And, as others have mentioned, I REALLY REALLY *REALLY* hate being called "rich" just because I live in a city where you have to have a big-sounding salary to be able to afford to eat well enough not to substantially increase your risk of dying from cancer (and no, I'm sorry, but eating fresh/organic/fair trade/whatever should not be seen as some super-duper special "luxury" reserved to the rich -- NO ONE should have to eat expired dollar-store canned shit) and rent in a neighborhood where I'm not likely to be LITERALLY raped walking home late at night. I RESENT being lumped in with people who have, literally, FIVE THOUSAND TIMES WHAT I MAKE. Yes, I may be richer than you, but give me a MOTHERFUCKING BREAK!!! If 200k is close enough to 20 MILLION that you should put us in the same tax bracket, why shouldn't we put someone making 20k in the same bracket? I mean, fuck, that's only a magnitude of difference of TEN from me, whereas these people apparently think it's fair to treat me the same as someone who makes ONE HUNDRED times what I do.

This shit makes me fucking hate everyone. The rich, the poor, everyone. The five percent of us who can reasonable call ourselves "middle class" anymore should pool our resources and buy an island where no other classes are allowed in. Leave the poor to blindly trust the fucking GOVERNMENT (what a fucking joke) to feed them and the rich to do whatever the fuck they want. I am fucking TIRED of worrying that my kids will quite seriously have no options but to nosedive into poverty, what with the ACTUALLY rich making it all but impossible to join their stupid little rich asshole ruling class club.

I mean, Jesus Christ, apparently I paid higher income taxes last year than WARREN FUCKING BUFFET. And you're telling me I'm RICH??????????

God I fucking hate our stupid government.

What I really enjoy about this site is the super-elevated tone of the comment threads.

Two important takeaway points for ATL.

1) If you're going to have political commentary, find someone who will at least pretend to be non-partisan and not add in superfluous attacks on the candidate he is ostensibly giving objective analysis of.

2) Don't have political commentary. This just isn't the forum. Also really helps out with point 1.

I think it's time we identify a condition that we'll call "Frank Insecurity," which can be defined as Ted Frank's inability to believe that anything he ever writes might be factually incorrect or blatantly partisan.

"For some people no comment on Obama, other than the purely laudatory, is anything other than a hackish right-wing attempt to forge an alliance of lies with Karl Rove and his ilk."

Hey, if the shoe fits, quit complaining about it.

Lat-

Your losing respect and readers when you post this crap. A tax policy analysis is fine, if it's provided from a group such as the Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org). This pure speculative partisan crap is totally misplaced here.

Now you're basically required to host an article by some left wing hack that says "Want to lower taxes, if we got rid of our military, we could cut taxes 25% across the board, how about that!"

If you have a brain, you know that Obama will increase taxes on people like us. He has stated directly many times that he will increase taxes on people making over $200,000 per year, which is pretty much everybody in BIGLAW.

Dear 210:

Does "Dialectic meathod" ring a bell?

BTW, I agree, ATL is now obligated to "host an article by some left wing hack", e.g., Austan Goolsbee of "Obama did not mean it when he attacked NAFTA" fame.

ALT has not lost the respect of THIS reader.

Does anyone actually believe a single thing this hack says? I'm not saying that Obama isn't going to raise taxes. I am saying that this frauds faulty logic is better presented to people that lack the intelligence that this crowd should have.

I do not for once second believe that if McCain lowered federal income tax and social security tax that the partners are going to INCREASE my salary as a reward. Saying that an increase on social security tax that decreases my take home is going to cause partners to make the corresponding decrease of my salary is equally as ridiculous.

I like living in a big city, and I like making a lot of money, but if you want to cut your tax bill, the most effective way is to move to a STATE with lower taxes. The top one percent paid an average federal tax rate of 22% last year. A move in the federal tax rate makes it sound scary when you add in all of the other taxes assed, but it's really not that big of a deal, we're all paying a lot in taxes as it is.

Dear 213:

Yes.

BTW, if you feel guilty about making $250K+ annually, you always have the option of VOLUNTARILY sending $35,000+ more a year to Uncle Sugar. Just don't obligate US to do so.

213 here-

Dear 214, you just proved the point that I was hoping to make, that the faulty logic will only pass with those of lesser intelligence.

If McCain cuts taxes any further, it is unlikely that your 160 starting (i'm assuming you're a summer) is magically going to become 175 because the partners now have more money. Similarly, if Obama raises the social security wage cap, it is unlikely that law firms are going to cut starting salaries to 151.

Also, I don't like wasting my tax dollars on bombs, but YOU are obligating me to do so. I like money, in fact, i'm pretty much a greedy bastard, but I have no disillusions about the reality of my income (it helps being a tax lawyer).

Note that in no way did I make an affront for wanting higher taxes, I simply said that the easiest way to decrease your tax liability is to take advantage of the disparity in STATE tax rates.

213 here again --

By the way, who says we can't do both candidates plans? What if we cut corporate tax rates (McCain), expand R&D credits (Obama), expand the tax brackets and link them to treasuries (me), lock in the Bush tax cuts for middle and upper middle wage earners (McCain), raise the rates to the Clinton upper level (which was much lower than Reagan) on the highest bracket (Obama), and create a "ridiculously rich" tax bracket for those making over say $2.5M or $5M a year? Why can't both be right in areas, and both be wrong in areas?

... just a thought ...

BARACK OBAMA’S SIMPLIFIED FORM 1040
--------

Line 1: How much did you make: $_______

Line 2: Send it in.

Thanks for the snark.

I do wish you would expand the discussion of McCain's plan to tax the health benefits of working folks.

177, even though you're probably a troll, I want to wrestle you and give you cauliflower ears just to be safe.

wah, wah, wah, all the Biglaw babies making $250,000 a year will have to give up one or two of their $3,000 suits or some $500 pairs of shoes so that a family earning less than $50,000 can get some help paying for their kids' health care, or a working husband/father who gets laid off can still feed his family while he looks for a new job, or a working mother can spend more a few days (unpaid) taking care of her newborn child. Oh that's right, if you can't "afford" to take a week off of work without pay (let alone a couple of months) to have a child, you shouldn't have kids. Only the rich should have kids. Such compassion people.

220: lol. Politics are the one place where a TTT grad can claim to be superior to someone who actually worked to get where they are. Have fun chasing that ambulance while thinking that I owe you something--it'll get you far.

Keep it guys! Just a couple more comments railing on Ted Frank for being partisan/question Lat's impartiality/threatening never to come to the site again and I'm sure Lat is going to see the error of his ways and never post another political comment!

Never mind the fact that we've had the same comments cluster**** every time Frank has posted and Lat continues to invite him back or that ATL feeds on the increased traffic that these threads bring. We just need a couple more comments and I'm sure Lat will see the error of his ways.

215: Reading is FUNdamental. Frank has never claimed that an increase/decrease in taxes will effect how much you're paid, just that it will have the same effect as a salary decrease/increase.

48: I'll stand as well, as the first member of my family to attend college, much less law school...you presumptive f**k

63, 73, 75, 85, 122, 203 & 224: Leave him be. 48 needs to justify how poorly he turned out given how hard he's worked. It's a lot easier to swallow the whole "they started out with more" line than to realize that "they're just better than you".

to 73 who says - "There are no poor hardworking people in this country."

To disprove this moronic statement all you need to do is find one.

Tell the single mother of a severely handicapped child working retail that she is not hardworking. Go find one - tell them to their face - wear a cup.

213 -- Great point -- that's precisely the type of post-partisan compromise that needs to take place. Notably, such a bipartisan compromise would be in keeping with the image both McCain and Obama try to present to the voters. That's the debate that needs to take place right now.

Unfortunately, John McCain, the presidential candidate (unlike John McCain, the Senator) is unwilling to discuss any raising of taxes. Moreover, most Republicans believe (whether correctly or not) that any tax increase (especially on the very rich) will slow our economic growth because of trickle-down economics. I would argue that the last eight years have shown that this theory is unrealistic and faulty but that's another discussion.

-- 185

226- Thank you for finally saying something reasonable with regard to that comment.

Very thoughtful and informative analysis. Good to see a substantive post on this blog for a change. Too bad for the author that the new ATL editor has already been picked.

Fed Soc

The rigidity and lack of tolerance of some of the readers of this site for points of view that differ from their own preconceived notions formed months ago regarding Barack Obama is not very flattering.

I can't believe this post. I know where to go if I want to read a Federalist Society blog. I don't come here to read some right-wing hack pushing his agenda. And Lat should not count my comment as a sign of "interest" in this post. Instead, it should be counted as it is a sign of profound disinterest. I used to enjoy this blog but I will stop reading it if there are a few more posts like this one.

231: But he's the messiah. He's here to save us! Impugning the name of such a holy person would lead to murders and riots on the other side of the globe. Be happy that we're content with the presidency.

226 -- why is she working retail. Why is she not a lawyer, or doctor, or investment banker. High school isn't graded on a curve -- everyone can make an A in a class. If you didn't make straight A's, you weren't working hard enough.

Yes, Lat, please just publish some saccharine pro-Obama puff pieces we poor little students and young professionals with zero life experience don't have to experience cognitive dissonance or have ourh opinions or beliefs challenged.

Yes, please do constant detailed reader polls and only post items that confirm predominantly held reader opinions.

Because if you don’t I am going to go away. Not now. Maybe if you post something I disagree with three more times. I am serious.

--231

233: do you really think intelligence is product of effort? Seriously? Sure, you can pull yourself up or knock yourself down to a degree, but there are smart people and not-smart people. There are pretty people and not pretty people. Lose weight and puting on makeup isn't going to get you a nomination for prom queen if you don't have the goods. If you're smart, thank your parents.

233 - maybe she didn't go to a high school that had fully qualified career counselors that advised about things like state colleges and student loans. Maybe despite working hard, she still didn't quite have the intellect to make A's. Maybe she has dyslexia or another learning handicap. Does that mean she doesn't deserve to have health care for her kids when she's working as hard as she can?

Maybe she'd like to return to school, but when does she have the time if she's working full time and caring for her child? Or maybe she has to work two full time jobs. Maybe she's worried about incurring a big student loan debt that she might not be able to repay. Not everyone that graduates law school ends up making the big bucks.

As for those people that said they weren't lucky and their family "never took a handout" and they worked their way through school, good for you. Must be nice that your family was "lucky enough" to never have to go on unemployment due to a layoff. Or maybe they were "lucky enough" to have the help of other family members.

Or, perhaps they were "lucky enough" to be in a family at a time when health care was fully paid for by their parents' employers, and their parents didn't have huge student loans that they were paying off for 30 years, and one person could make enough of a 'living wage' so the other could stay home to raise the kids.

236 speaks truth to callousness.

You who are "standing up" because you did it on your own are exceptional people. And I commend your achievements. I think we can all agree, however, that you are not average, that your talents are rare. Do you really expect that everyone should do as you have done? Do you not have a higher estimation of your own abilities - you think you're just average, just like everyone else in your mental faculties, your work ethic, your drive, your ambition, your creative energy, your ability to rise above the expectations of the people that surround you?

Re marriage tax penalty:

192: Your justification is valid only if we want to discourage women from working. You say that it is impossible to have both equal treatment for married and unmarried couples AND equal treatment for spouses whose total income is the same, regardless of the disparity. You say the latter is more important.

In other words, its more important to you that a breadwinner making 100k and his housewife pay the same as two married teachers making 50k each.

So basically your tax code is subsidizing stay-at-home moms (or dads - but thats less common) at the cost of penalizing marriage for working spouses. So, in effect, you are subsidizing those couples who are well-off enough to be afford to have one spouse stay home and not work. Couples who cannot afford this luxury get slammed.

Also, your textbook is wrong. You can have all three goals met if you include significiant child care tax credits in the mix. Since single-earner families are usually such in order to raise kids, the child care credit can serve to equalize the total tax burden in a regime where the marriage tax penalty is eliminated.

198: Yes, McCain and countless others have voted to maintain the marriage tax penalty (Bush did at lease reduce it). But Obama stands alone in this election in wanting to INCREASE the penalty. So, McCain is clearly the lesser of two evils.

226: That hypothetical mother is not hardworking. If she were, she would not be poor.

If you are hardworking, even in retail, one can move up in management and make a decent living. Not to mention getting a second job, or working in a field that pays better (there are many that require no education).

If she cannot take care and provide for her hypothetic child, she should give her up for adoption or place in in a home.

Hope this helps.

192: Can you show your math? Why can't you have a progressive tax code that treats all couples making the same total income the same, and single and married couples the same?

It seems to me all you have to do is have the married income brackets set at exactly twice the single income brackets. Am I wrong?

237: Not really, all it takes is effort to put yourself through high school and college. Law school may be for higher than average people, but anyone who is not mentally retarded can work and graduate from college.

Hope this helps.

Ye are all fecking nuts. If you don't like an article posted on ATL, don't click on the link and do not make a comment. It only encourages it.

I frankly don't care which idiot becomes president, or what policies are implimented. We survived Carter, we survived Ford, We survived Bush. I think we'll get through McCain or Obama.

176: the difference, for better or worse, between Republicans and Democrats is that we will see ads attacking Obama as a radical black threat to white America, but you will never see ads attacking the fact that McCain finished in the bottom of his class at Annapolis and his daddy gave him a handout, making him a fighter pilot despite his utter lack of merit.

241: I disagree. The problem here is that most, if not all, of us have been consorting in intellectually elite circles for most of our lives. Given the heavy bias here for top tier law schools, I'd guess that the clear majority of folks on this board are at least two standard deviations to the right of the median IQ. In college you probably knew some folks who were a "mere" one standard deviation to the right. But its unlikely you knew too many folks who were at or below the median, much less more than a standard deviation to the left.

Folks a full standard deviation to the left of the median are not mentally retarded, however they would have substantial difficulty with college-level courses regardless of the effort they put in. I recently read an excellent article by a community college English teacher explaining how his students, despite their best efforts, simply couldn't draft basic college-quality essays. They had trouble with logic, trouble following the assignments, and trouble with clarity.

So, to a large degree it is our gifts that got us where we are. But those gifts have much more to do with our intellectual abilities than with who raised us or how much money we had growing up. To insinuate the latter as a previous poster has done is both insulting and flatly wrong.

241: I agree with your post except that I think you have to concede that intelligence is correlated with income, and therefore, the children of intelligent people are more likely to have grown up in a more financially well-off household.

244, not 241

Signed 245

243: Nor will you see ads about how McCain left his first, disabled wife. Family values indeed. Probably won't hear anything about how he throws things at his staff either. The man is unhinged. He has been coasting on POW status for 3 decades; time for an accounting.

247

Don't forget to mention the fact that he was at the heart of the savings and loan scandal. He's clearly just the man to take the helm during times of bank insolvencies.

245: Yes, that's true. But a) studies have been done that control for that, and b) you have to account for reversion to the mean.

249: Please explain these concepts.

Sad, deceitful partisan blather... LEWW turning into a public celebration of Lat's hetero breeder friends... no more pictures of Kash... this site sucks. I'm voting with my feet (eyes?) and no longer reading ATL. You complainers are just feeding the page-view beast - and putting $$ into Lat's pockets at the same time. Don't do it! Exercise self-control. When on the internets, don't feed the trolls... and this whole site has become a troll.

later folks

People choose their choices. That’s the great thing about living in this country. Anyone can be successful and live comfortably if they work hard. The problem with the socialist direction that this country is headed in (as demonstrated by the Obama tax plan) is that mediocrity is embraced and hard work is essentially punished. Why should a person work 60+ hours per week in biglaw if the government takes half their paycheck? Why should a person spend 7 or more years of her life achieving a higher education only to have the government confiscate their hard earned money to redistribute to people just didn’t feel like going to high school or acquiring any other marketable skill? Obama’s tax plan punishes those who, like biglaw associates, work long hours, are highly educated, and those who have likely worked their tails off for a long time to get to that place in life.

At the same time, Obama’s proposed increased spending on social programs rewards those who have made the choice not to pursue higher education, not to acquire a marketable skills, and not to work the long hard hours required to find success. Such a policy essentially tells people that it is OK if you don’t feel like going to school or if you don’t feel like working long hours because those that do will prop you up.

To quote Ned Flanders: “Taxes pay for flowers, and sunshine, and people who just don’t feel like working, God bless ‘em.”

People choose their choices. That’s the great thing about living in this country. Anyone can be successful and live comfortably if they work hard. The problem with the socialist direction that this country is headed in (as demonstrated by the Obama tax plan) is that mediocrity is embraced and hard work is essentially punished. Why should a person work 60+ hours per week in biglaw if the government takes half their paycheck? Why should a person spend 7 or more years of her life achieving a higher education only to have the government confiscate their hard earned money to redistribute to people just didn’t feel like going to high school or acquiring any other marketable skill? Obama’s tax plan punishes those who, like biglaw associates, work long hours, are highly educated, and those who have likely worked their tails off for a long time to get to that place in life.

At the same time, Obama’s proposed increased spending on social programs rewards those who have made the choice not to pursue higher education, not to acquire a marketable skills, and not to work the long hard hours required to find success. Such a policy essentially tells people that it is OK if you don’t feel like going to school or if you don’t feel like working long hours because those that do will prop you up.

To quote Ned Flanders: “Taxes pay for flowers, and sunshine, and people who just don’t feel like working, God bless ‘em.”

252 and 253

You act like the choice here is between taxes and no taxes. Buddy, the progressive tax system is here to stay.

Flat tax!

"What is so bad about raising taxes? Why has it become such a political epithet?"

This is a really stupid comment. For starters, how can it not turn your stomach to give MORE money to a government who consistently mismanages it?

I'd rather pay taxes and have a job than let Bush/McCain continue to run this country into the shitter.

Besides, regulation is great for lawyers.

244 - "I recently read an excellent article by a community college English teacher explaining how his students, despite their best efforts, simply couldn't draft basic college-quality essays. They had trouble with logic, trouble following the assignments, and trouble with clarity. "

And yet they all passed that class, got a community college degree, and if they are in a state like California received automatic admission into a state four year institution to complete their bachelor's degree.

I know most people on this site don't realize this, but there are many options for receiving a post highschool education other than HYS. Anyone who graduates from highschool can go to college if they want. Minimal effort or intelligence at the majority of state schools and community colleges lead to a degree that will significantly increase the earning capacity of graduates. If they don't want college, they can go to a trade school to learn a skill that will allow them to contribute to society while making a decent living.

I think the problem most of us have with Obama's plan is not that it rewards those who are trying their hardest to improve their situation in life, but that it rewards those who have decided that they don't want to better themselves and will rely on others for support.

Regardless of one's education and training, everyone deserves to have decent health care. Is that really so wrong? There will always have to be someone that cleans out your trashcans, works at Wal-mart, flips your burgers at McDonalds, picks the fruits and vegtables you eat, and teaches your kids at school. these jobs will never make a lot of money, but someone has to do it, it can't all be done by machine or by teenagers on summer break or after school. We can't all be doctors, lawyers and investment bankers.

The people that work those jobs still deserve the benefits that most of us take for granted, such as being able to go to the doctor for preventative health care and not rely on ER visits when they become sick, not having to choose between going to the doctor and putting food on the table for their families, not having to choose between staying employed or taking care of sick child who can't go to school for a day.

These are real economic decisions that many people make every day. More than 40 million people in this country don't have health insurance because many of them they can't afford it. If those that make so much can give up 1% so that everyone in this country could have health care, is that so hard to do?

Of course, maybe if we can stop this middle-east war and its quicksand money pit, taxes won't have to be raised as much.

259 - I doubt you would find very many people that would oppose giving up 1% to ensure that everyone has adequate health care. The problem is that the government doesn't work that way. The government raises taxes with a stated purpose (sometimes) and then either mismanage the money by entrusting it to the bulky beauracracy or use it for something completely different (e.g. the Iraq war you mentioned). I guarantee that if a national ballot measure were proposed for universal health insurance in exchange for a 1% tax increase with a "lock-box" protection for the funds raised, it would pass with 75%+ of the vote. But, again, things don't work that way (for better or worse).

-258

I actually disagree with 259. The vegetable pickers of today get better health care than the wealthiest individuals of almost every prior generation. Didn't the poor back then "deserve" just what the poor today deserve? If so, they would have deserved treatments that hadn't even been invented yet.

When it comes to medical care -- and many other issues -- the question is simply NOT about what people "deserve." The most relevant question is how to most efficiently allocate scarce resources and, particularly, how to spur medical developments that further such allocation.

History has shown again and again that the answer to those questions is not to hand resources -- or control over an entire medical system -- over to the government.

258: Actually, the community college article was about how the prof had to fail those students, but felt bad about it because they tried so hard. Nevertheless, he felt he had to enforce standards if the degree was going to mean anything.

At any rate, you do still have a point. The students he failed were almost all employed in some capacity or another. And not in menial labor or retail jobs. Cops, secretaries, clerks, etc. All of which is to say that hard work alone in our country WILL earn you a decent living. But not everyone has the intellectual firepower to obtain the higer-paying professional jobs.

So what should the fact that there is an unequal distribution of talent mean for out tax code? If I wanted to utterly cop-out, I could say that question is above my pay grade. But I'll bite. Albeit politically impossible, I think a flat tax is the only fair system. There are simply too many variables to say with any accuracy that the richer folks had it "easier" than poorer folks, and therefore owe the poorer folks some disproportionate share of their income. Moreover, the higher paying jobs tend to be the ones that society values more, and we do not want to discourage people from pursuing the career paths that lead to those jobs.

Private industry isn't doing such a great job of providing health care for all. Not when its priced out of reach for nearly 40 million people. We allow government control over our public education system, where apparently all one has to do is work hard and get straight A's in order to succeed in life. Other countries seem to do just fine with public health systems.

Yes it would be great if we could direct where our taxes go. but the people here don't want their taxes raised for any reason, assuming that their money is just going to be 'given away' to someone who doesn't work (despite the fact that there is an outside limit on straight up 'welfare' and seriously there aren't many people who could be said even live a middle class life on welfare).

I don't like my taxes raised either, but if its going to a good cause, to help people out who need the help, then I don't mind so much. Do the people that complain so much about their taxes being raised already contribute a similar amount to charities? Or is their idea of 'charity' just donating a few clothes and shoes?

What gets me about the entire tax debate is that there is no discussion of principles underlying the myriad provisions of the tax code. We have an absolute jumble of brackets, deductions, credits, refundable credits, phase outs, and exclusions. And this doesn't include the effects of the payroll and state taxes. I doubt anyone on either side of this debate is happy with the status quo. As a group we're not even able to accurately describe the current complex marginal rate structure. I would like to hear some proposals from those supporting alternatives. If you support a progressive rate structure, where should the brackets be and what should the rates be? If you're for an alternative, what should it look like?

Personally, I'm in favor of a consumption tax. There are three things one can do with income...spend for necessities, spend for non-necessities (including giving), and save. Every one of you out there decides what you do with your income. Your disposal of that income goes into one or more of those three categories. Spending for necessities (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and medical care) is the #1 priority for everyone but idiots and drug addicts. After that, some Americans save some money before spending on non-necessities. Others spend all of the rest on non-necessities (many even borrowing more to spend on non-necessities). So, how does this relate to taxation?

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

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

The problem with a flat tax is that everyone disputes what is considered "a necessity" and/or the "poverty line." Is a car a necessity? Or two? What about three or four? How many is a 'necessity' vs. a 'non-necessity'? Same with clothing. Do you equate a fur coat as a necessity compared to a wool coat? Isa telephone a necessity? what about a cell phone or a blackberry? Is pie or cake a necessity? Shelter is a necessity, but is that swimming pool or tennis court? Who really gets to decide what constitutes a necessity and what isn't?

A national retail sales tax with rebate wouldn't work in a society where some people don't have permanent addresses or move frequently, or the elderly or some handicapped people who may forget to submit their rebate (or keep their receipts). Is it "oops, sorry you forgot to get your rebate, or lost your receipts, you can't get your money." guess its the stupid tax.

Do you really think that either a 0% or X% rate, with a line between the two would encourage people to work more? Depending on where that line is, don't you think that some people would lie/cheat or purposely take lower paying jobs to avoid having to pay any tax at all vs. say 15% (or whatever)? Say the line is drawn at $50,000. I'd bet that suddenly, there'd be almost no one making between $50,000 and $60,000, because there's no incentive to earn that extra $10,000 if it would all be taken away in taxes. At least with a progressive tax, one gets to keep half or more of that extra.

If one truly wants to "keep a greater percentage of their disposable income than others" there's nothing stopping that person from earning less money. Frankly, I'd rather make $200,000 and keep $100,000 of it, than earn $50,000 and keep $40,000.

265,

You're not correctly understanding how brackets work. In your example with a line drawn at $50,000 and someone making $60,000 of income, only the $10,000 in excess of $50,000 would be taxed at 15%. Jeez.

Necessities are just that...necessary. It's the cost of basic food, clothing, shelter, and health insurance needed for survival and nothing more. The government seems to be doing just fine setting a poverty line and I'm sure they could continue to do so if a national retail sales tax replaces the federal income tax.

As for the rebate being unfeasible because people move frequently, I guess we should get rid of those social security and welfare checks too because we just can't seem to find out where to send them. Trust me, that is one address change people will go out of their way to make. Regardless, if you haven't noticed, we've quickly moved to direct deposit.

Not sure what "receipts" you're talking about. Rebates would be provided based on the poverty line and number of people in your household (and possibly geography). There is nothing to submit.

Finally, I'm not arguing for keeping a greater percentage of disposable income than others. I'm only arguing that everyone should have to give up the same percentage of their disposable income.

264/266: Some of us have heard of the Fair Tax before. That's what your proposing, and you shouldn't pretend it's an original idea or imply that it's yours (unless you're the originator).

The Fair Tax has a lot to recommend it, and you've mentioned some of those points. I'm in favor of it, if only because (a) we'll never get a head tax, my favorite tax, and (b) we've got to try something.

267 here: I cannot f'ing believe I typed "your" instead of "you're."

the problem with a flat tax is that it is inherently regressive. it would equate to a tax increase probably 90% of the population and a tax decrease on the other 10% It would be horrible for the middle class

267-

I actually mentioned the FairTax in my original post. I certainly wasn't trying to "pretend" that its my original idea and I'm sorry if it read that way. I've been following the tax reform debate since the mid-90s, before the FairTax was around, and no one can claim credit for the entire idea.

My post was intended to focus on the principles behind fair taxation. I really would like to see a defense of the current marginal rate structure or proposals for alternatives, including some sort of principled support.

I don't think anyone should have to pay a larger or smaller proportion of their disposable income than anyone else to the government. It's all gravy, and everyone should have to give up the same percentage of theirs to feed the government. Unfortunately, the debate over the fair tax has devolved into an argument over whether to quote the proposed rate on an inclusive or exclusive basis.

269-

The flat tax is not regressive, it is flat. If you include a 0% bracket below the poverty line, it even becomes progressive. For example, say you set the poverty line at $50,000, and set a 20% rate above $50,000. Someone making $50,000 would pay 0% of their income in taxes. Someone making $100,000 would pay $10,000 tax (10% of their income). Someone making $1,000,000 would pay $190,000 tax (19% of their income). Looks pretty progressive to me.

As for your pitting the bottom 90% against the top 10%, the top 10% provides all of the jobs in this country. They provide all of the capital to keep our economy going. We should celebrate them. If you were to lower the taxes on this group, more overseas investment would flow back to the U.S. The dollar would strengthen. The economy would grow more quickly. Fewer of the immensely wealthy would seek out tax shelters. Revenue would rise.

But we all know that the purpose behind taxing the wealthy heavily isn't to increase government revenues. So this falls upon deaf ears.

269: You are wrong. The tax is flat.

In a flat income tax of 10%, somone who makes $1 a year pays the EXACT SAME percent (e.g. 10%) as someone who makes $1,000,000,000 a year.

Hope this helps.

re 265- you're right

a flat tax is regressive, while a progressive tax is a fairer distribution of income vs. "buying power"

a flat tax (eg 10% of earnings) is regressive in the sense while $40K earner (mean) keep $36K, the $200K earner keeps $180K. The $4K to a mean household buys more in real "necessities" than the $20K so a househould already 5X richer than the avg person.

Money doesn't scale linearly because "buying-in" potential doesn't scale linearly. A $200K earner has relatively the same buying potential of a $180K earner, but $4K to a $40K earner could be two or three mortgage payments.

warren buffet understands this clearly as a form of old-fashioned *noblese oblige*. higher incomes mean that people can enjoy more of the non-necessities national parks, nice cars and excellent roads, freedom of business, and peaceful government than those at lower incomes. Hence, as a "price" for the ability to enjoy more, a larger fraction of taxes should paid.

Hence a policy that is progressive is rate with changes in utility.

the knee-jerk fear is that this will discourage growth.

obama recognizes that the us economy is powered primarily by the us consumer, of which 90% are <$250K/yr. And while the top 10% may employee the lower 90%, they do so at a profit (aka "a business"). Our current recession highlights a failure of the lower 90% to keep up their end (price inflation+wage stagflation). Yes, the top 10% will suffer, but ...

"Some float high, others are just above the water."

failure to act would only post the problem for the top 10% though, while spurring foreign market involvement. America can't stand on just 10% of the population, no matter how much they earn.

What trickles down, can flood up.

re 264- you're wrong

proposing a consumption tax to replace the current is a strongly regressive tax (poorer folk hit harder than richer).

this is because the additional parts of the tax codes address incomes, expenses, and investments that richer people can take greater adv. for vs. poor people. reverting to a consumption tax amounts to a GIANT tax cut for the wealthy by removing other taxable events. This would shift the burden of supporting the govt and infrastructure more to the poorer earners.

a poorer person spends more of their income (%wise) on "necessities" than a richer person. ie while a richer person w/o an expensive house is technically homeless, they can easily buy a less expensive house still above the avg.

a consumption tax shifts the tax *burden* while deceptively claiming to reduce the types of taxes. nice con.`

Obama vs. McCain Tax Plan

Easy to understand graph

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html