How 'bout we just can you instead. Ya! You Betcha!

obama = stupid

There is one simple solution to this problem. Work just as hard ensuring that this candidate is not elected president. In what is perhaps the most important election in the last 40 years, it is vital that people finally realize that an unqualified person with no experience who believes that people who do not pay any taxes reap the fruits of the hardest working, well-paid Americans, is not a viable candidate for highest office.

First off, the 6.2% FICA increase isn't going to hit for many years, and its only going to hit individuals 2%. And that's assuming Obama could even get such a proposal to pass Congress. So at most, the associates could get hit with the increase to income tax when Bush's tax cuts expire.

No one ever said those were permanent tax cuts, so buck it up under-30 attorney making $265,000 and pay the extra $2,000 or so of your raise so that someone less fortunate than you can see a doctor when they're sick.

The articles premise is stupid, but we really should go back to a cost of life adjustment in NY. Obama will raise taxes nationally, but NY State and NYC are also planning on raising taxes to cope with the economic armageddon.

Vote democrat, marry republican...

@ 6:
You are stupid for not knowing when to use an apostrophe.

5 is a moron.

Example: He believes that the associate making $265k will be under 30. Either we are talking about Doogie Houser here, or 5 doesn't know how old you are when you are 7 years out of law school.

Is there a better legal tabloid/blog I can read? This thing has really hit the crapper. Any suggestions?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Grow up. We're ridiculously overcompensated as is.

4:36 to managing partner. Greedy associates be damned.

9, if you count bonuses you don't need to be out of school in 7 years to make $265k.

But think about all the extra billables we'll get as litigation goes up thanks to more and more regulation!

But think about all the extra billables we'll get as litigation goes up thanks to more and more regulation!

Those Asian chronicles look more and more attractive every day. Who would have thought that China would be the beacon of hope for the rejection of socialistic markets.

but i don't care if they're sick..

9, if you count bonuses you don't need to be out of school in 7 years to make $265k.

Wait, so should those "greedy" associates have to pay back the partners' contributions to the Obama campaign if McCain wins?

It's a ridiculous argument. Whenever you make a political contribution or cast a vote, you are supporting policies that affect people other than yourself. It's the essence of democracy. You shouldn't have to personally "compensate" the minority that didn't support your views if your candidate wins.

Wait, so should those "greedy" associates have to pay back the partners' contributions to the Obama campaign if McCain wins?

It's a ridiculous argument. Whenever you make a political contribution or cast a vote, you are supporting policies that affect people other than yourself. It's the essence of democracy. You shouldn't have to personally "compensate" the minority that didn't support your views if your candidate wins.

way to resize an image.

This is dumb. Has it occurred to Elie (or the anonymous associate) that those same partners who are supporting Obama *also* would see their taxes go up? Clearly they've decided that they're willing to accept the tax increase if Obama wins. Do we think clients will be willing to accept rate increases to boost compensation for those partners who will be taking a hit on taxes?

News flash: $250K is NOT the break-off point for tax hikes if you're single. Singles will get hit starting at $200K (if you take Obama at his word), so most junior associates are also in trouble under his plan.

This is directly from Obama's tax plan (even though he never acknolwedges the $200K number on TV):
"Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s
levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to
ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was
affected by these changes."
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

13/18 - "So a sixth year associate, who currently makes $250k and will receive a raise to $265k in January will see a larger chunk of that extra $15k disappear to taxes (via the new 39% tax bracket and and the 6.2% FICA tax)." The article is clearly referring to a 6/7 year, not some Wachtell gunner.

I don't get why people keep calling the bank takeover socialist. It would be socialist if the tax payers also got a cut of the profits that these firms had made. What this is is the privatization of profit but the socialization of loss. I.e. a kleptocracy.

Note to Republicans upset that their $250K job would result in incrementally higher taxes under Obama than under McCain: be thankful you still have that job after what the Republican WH and Congress have done to our economy. Its one thing to speak in the abstract about small government Republicans and big government Democrats. The reality is that the Republicans led the charge to bigger government the last eight years, ran up huge deficits on non-infrastructure related consumption, did nothing to prevent the current credit crisis until it was too late, and left us in the hole we are now in. If in three years you still have your $250K job, be thankful for it and any taxes that come with it.

26: GOP Congress? Um, what has Pelosi and company done in the last two years aside from take recesses (after they exclaimed they wouldn't)? This is the most ineffective Congress ever.

The best solution is to send those dumb partners to countries like North Korea or Cuba. Being a slave of the state, They could fully embrace socialism there.

... without getting political, how much extra tax? An extra $150/month in taxes for someone taking home over $15k/month?

"Singles will get hit starting at $200K (if you take Obama at his word), so most junior associates are also in trouble under his plan."

I see this as a biglaw attorney with student debt amount comparable to the average mortgage: If you're making $200K as a single person with no dependants, you are not in any "trouble."

"Singles will get hit starting at $200K (if you take Obama at his word), so most junior associates are also in trouble under his plan."

I say this as a biglaw attorney with student debt amount comparable to the average mortgage: If you're making $200K as a single person with no dependants, you are not in any "trouble."

27: Well... let's see: 95-2006 was a GOP Congress; 2001-2008 was a GOP WH. You're right, it must be the Democrats fault.

5 says: "so buck it up under-30 attorney making $265,000 and pay the extra $2,000 or so of your raise so that someone less fortunate than you can see a doctor when they're sick."

How about if some of those less fortunate souls come and fill-in for me after 5 and most Saturdays so that those of us who are "less fortunate" in our free time can enjoy life.

My guess is that they would prefer to keep their nights and weekends. I would prefer to keep my money.

5 says: "so buck it up under-30 attorney making $265,000 and pay the extra $2,000 or so of your raise so that someone less fortunate than you can see a doctor when they're sick."

How about if some of those less fortunate souls come and fill-in for me after 5 and most Saturdays so that those of us who are "less fortunate" in our free time can enjoy life.

My guess is that they would prefer to keep their nights and weekends. I would prefer to keep my money.

1. Elie, please please stop writing these political posts.

2. Anyone with a brain can realize that one's own financial situation is only one factor in deciding for whom to vote.

A mid-level associate could decide to vote for McCain for any number of reasons, including the fact that it may result in lower taxes for him/her personally.

But the same associate could also decide to vote for Obama, on any number of grounds, including the argument that an increase in taxes paid by him/her personally may be outweighed by other Obama policies. (For example, the fact that law-firm associates are better able to shoulder higher taxes than families earning $30K per year.)

Only You Can Stop Obamanism!

This site is dead. Can anyone suggest an alernative?

24, I was talking about 9's comment, not about the article. You don't need to be a Wachtell gunner, you can be an associate at Cleary and make that much before you're a senior associate.

This is the dumbest post ever.

I need to start smoking.

Man, Elie, you really suck at this. Your posts are just getting worse and worse. Please take one for the team and just step away now, before you drive ATL even further into the toilet.

37 - I like bitterlawyer.com, less gossip, but the material is 10x more entertaining.

This doesn't have any relevance on the brewing situation at GULC. GULC students are turning into cannibals and GULCing each other mercilessly in the middle of torts.

Balls Deep

Comment # 4 = 5 foot 7, white male, older UVA 2L with a receding hairline and glasses who is a proud "fiscal conservative" even though he takes quotes from foxnews blogs and pastes them here.

Is there a more self-entitled, whiny bunch of douchetards than Biglaw associates?

Regardless of which candidate wins or what tax policies are in effect next year, since when has it been any employer's responsibility to ensure a given amount of take home pay? If you commute from a different state (NYC, WDC, etc.) you might pay differnt rates than people who live in the same state. If you buy a really big house and have a huge mortgage deduction your taxes might go down.

The fact that someone would plausibly believe that a law firm should "make whole" an employee who now pays higher taxes because of a change in policy is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

What if the firm moved to a different building and parking was more expensive or an extra $.25 on your subway ride? What if the co-pay on the insurance goes up? What if your 401(k) tanks? What if the firm cafeteria raised its prices? Would you expect your employer to raise your pay to compensate for these events as well?

Really a ridiculous argument and misconception of the employee-employer relationship. The political angle is really just incidental.

32: you are obviously engaged in partial history. Perhaps you don't understand that the credit problems and financial meltdown are heavily (at least) to bad mortgages being given to those who could not pay them. Would you like to venture a guess as to which party really pushed that issue? Of course, transactional practices thrived as a result of these assets being pushed around. Also, there's blame for Republicans there as well, but at least they tried to do something about it. It's one thing to write a letter (Obama), it's another to propose legislation and have the democrats use their power to block it.

I think it's pretty crummy for anyone making $200K a year to start crying over increased taxes. Our schools suck, our infrastructure sucks, we have loads of national debt and national defense isn't getting any cheaper. Most of the people reading this blog went to public schools through grade school, and probably through law school too. The American public has invested in you so that you can make more money and be a more productive member in the community, and now you want to take it and run? Tool. Either join the military or pay your damn taxes, but don't be such a selfish little brat. -MWE

The baseball analogy is completely nonsensical. New York and Boston firms pay higher salaries than most Florida firms anyways. Plus, taxes are NOT AT ALL the reason the Yankees and Red Sox pay more money to their players than the Marlins and Rays. It's because they have more ticket-paying fans and therefore higher revenues.

Undergrads doing the research at ATL these days?

I wish Mystttal would get taxed for every freakin ttt in his name.

Suck it.

48: I pay a lot of taxes already. I pay thousands and thousands a month in taxes, on top of the thousands of dollars I pay to my student-loan creditors. Now, you're right, I do enjoy a nice standard of living. And, so what? My tax dollars (along with others in my bracket) comprise the majority of taxes paid in this country so I'm "giving back" already. Why do I have to give back even more? As one previous poster noted, I work extremely long hours, took a huge gamble by going through college and law school and then a government clerkship (taking out debt all along the way) and now you say I don't deserve to keep my heightened standard of living? Why don't you just give more of your money in the form of a donation to the government?

Listen to #48. Couldn't agree more.

51 - The simple explanation because you can, everybody else can't, and we need the money, bad. If you don't want to be a part of it, move.

51 - by how much do you think your standard of living will actually decrease? Yes we all work hard and took gambles, etc., but we make four to five times more than most Americans do. Are you four to five times smarter or harder working than most Americans?

We also benefit disproportionately from tax dollars - wealth in this country flows up, not down, which is why starting salaries for first-years has increased tens of thousands of dollars since Dubya took office, while most Americans' incomes have gone down.

I think this is true in ordinary times, and these aren't ordinary times. The country as a whole is skating on thin ice: social services, schools, pretty much everything will be underfunded over the coming years. The country is on the brink of collapse and all we can do is sit here whining about only being able to afford the 50" big screen instead of the 60" bigscreen? This blog's readers have the capacity to contribute more to help keep the bottom from falling out. Your response is to let them eat cake. Disgraceful.

By the way, let's not forget that a lot of us work at the firms who put together all of the credit default swaps in the first place. People reading this blog made tons of money on the whole deal.

-48.

53: at least you're willing to admit you're a communist. By chance, would you be interested in some history books to see how that works out? Or maybe just how socialism has worked?

Yet another inane Elie post.

Obama sucks

54: I made no money on the swaps. Also, I suppose as I pay more in taxes I'll be sure to tell my family, to whom I give money (whether it's to help my parents keep their house in good repair, help my brothers make rent), to go ask the government for help because they have my money.

My standard of living will decrease if I lose tax dollars. Either that, or I'll have to stop giving money to the charitable organizations to whom I give 15-20% of my income now. Good thing the huge government bureaucracy will be there to spend it wisely.

At least tell me that you and the Obama ilk are willing to share in the sacrifice by trimming government spending and eliminating the new spending programs. Spending more doesn't solve problems. You're right to look at educational spending: Bush increased spending more than any other administration and education is still not leading in the world.

I love how "ownership society" means that those who can't afford housing, etc will get it at my expense, but I don't get to own my paycheck. Funny how that works. And here I thought that working my way out of a poor family meant I would get to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Not with this socialist drivel.

lol @ all the collegiate libertarians posting on this blog

This makes me sick. I would rather give up a few thousand dollars than have a republican in office again. Most of you make more money than you deserve and you are disgustingly selfish.

Elie has to be trolling here. Elie, you got flak for your Democrat-leaning posts, but you don't have to present a stupid argument for the other side in response. Honestly, anyone who is paid market as an associate, from 1st years up, makes enough money that they can suck up any tax increase like the one described in this post. If you can't, you are pathetic.

Or, in other words, guys in my high school used to participate in civilization by accepting a modest decrease in their income, equivalent to the cost of taking a few extra cab rides per week, all the time. It was no big deal.

Wealth flows up? Some of you socialists must be functionally retarded.

@55

Modern socialism is really just an evolution of Smithsonian capitalism, while modern American capitalism is an adaptation of marxist capitalism

Unregulated capitalism works about as good as communism and time has proven that again, and again, and again.

In reality the overwhelming majority of Americans loose more of their income paying for essentials that the rest of the developed world gets from the government then they save in the reduced tax burden.

America takes the worst parts of capitalism and socialism and mashes up.

I love how people think that the partial nationalization of the financial sector is some crazy communist wet dream. It also shows why Ellie is an idiot.

Doing what makes economic sense is not socialist, it is smart. If it was not for a bankrupt economic ideology the Treasury would have done this months ago when Bear folded and we could have actually been in front of the crisis instead of doing what we always do and produce an entirely reactionary response.

54 writes "Are you four to five times smarter or harder working than most Americans?"

Nope. That's why most Americans should be making close to what I'm making. If they're not, they're underachieving. High school isn't graded on a curve -- everyone can make straight A's. If you didn't, you weren't working hard enough.

Obama supporting partners are simply patriotic

Psycho wingnuts like Palin MUST be kept out of the White House.

@64: Yes, most of the people get more than they would pay for in the US because the very rich are paying for them. Only a communist moonbat like yourself would think this is a good thing.

Quick question to all the people who keep throwing the "communist" epithet around: do you all have buzzcuts? What decade are you in?

The Greasers are fighting the Jocks and Squares in the schoolyard tonight at midnight and Ellie is going to watch and eat turkey.

This thread makes me so embarassed to be a biglaw associate. It's no wonder we're generally regarded as greedy, overpaid, selfish, self-absorbed little princes and princesses.

As a Biglaw associate, I will gladly pay more in taxes in order to elect Obama's social policies into office. We make enough money.

65 -- I agree with you completely. Those people who live in abject poverty, who depend on food stamps, who have no health insurance, no access to a decent education, who are stuck supporting parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc. should just stop complaining and realize that they are the reason that they can't get ahead. I'm not sure which sheltered neighborhood in Connecticut you grew up in (I could take a good guess), but believe it or not, not everyone even has the opportunity to go to high school, let alone "underachieve" at one. I'm a biglaw associate and have been around long enough to see all types of young lawyers. Most are smart enough to realize they lucked out in life and work hard, give back and enjoy the fruits. But there are always a few who grew up with such wealth and privilege that even the concept that some people have to take the minimum wage job does not register. Take off the blinders.

As a Biglaw associate, I will gladly pay more in taxes in order to elect Obama's social policies into office. We make enough money.

64 wrote: "Doing what makes economic sense is not socialist, it is smart. If it was not for a bankrupt economic ideology the Treasury would have done this months ago when Bear folded and we could have actually been in front of the crisis instead of doing what we always do and produce an entirely reactionary response."

It was the bankrupt economic ideology foisted on the financial markets by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al. that declared that people who weren't credit worthy as judged by commonly accepted standards were to be given loans to buy houses. The same fantasy-driven idealogues then prevented the necessary oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac while basking in contributions from said GSEs. Tell me again why it's a surpise we needed a reactionary response?

Considering this issue apart from "associate" pay, what I don't understand is biglaw partners' lack of understanding of basic economics. If the government taxes people more (including small businesses, which results in less jobs), there is less consumer spending and companies make less money, which means less spending on legal services. The impact is much greater than the (arguably) small percentage increase Obama proposes.

65 - teachers don't make close to what you make. Are you saying they are underachieving?

http://obamaisscum.blogspot.com/

It's a bit hypocritical to say that associate make more money than they "deserve" or similar arguments. If liberal Biglaw partners think we make too much, then what do they call their partner distributions, which are significantly and often exponentially higher? And if we really don't deserve what we're making, why don't the liberal partners cut our billing rates so companies have more money to pay their employees?

Dear BigLaw Associates Making >$200K,

I'm sorry you will be making 2K less. And I'm sorry you think I'm lazy.

xoxoxo,

your cab driver, nanny, waiter, BMW mechanic, etc...

70 wrote: This thread makes me so embarassed to be a biglaw associate. It's no wonder we're generally regarded as greedy, overpaid, selfish, self-absorbed little princes and princesses."

Have you (and Joe Biden, judging by his tax returns) ever heard of private charitable donations? Are you and Joe Biden that lazy that you can't step up and just donate your resources to someone who needs help? Are you that dumb in beliving that government is the answer? You should be embarassed - for yourself.

I, and I'm sure others on this board take pride in helping others through donations of money and time to churches and other charitable organizations. Part of that pride comes from believing that we know better than any government how to best allocate our non insubstantial charitable resources.

@72, I went to public high school in rural Virginia. No private school, no fancy suburb public school. Everyone where I grew up had access to the same education I did. If you work hard in high school, you'll get in a good college. Most of the Ivies now offer full rides for folks making $40K a year or less. So money is not an issue, and taking advantage of those opportunities will enable people to afford health insurance (or get jobs with it) and support their extended families. And at least where I grew up, it is the law to attend at least two years of high school -- and everyone has the opportunity to go to all four (and do well). Minimum wage is no barrier to biglaw -- not working hard is.

Teachers = TTT

80 - You forgot the "e" in believing. I, therefore, do not respect your opinion or your actions.

Much like the door to equity partnership has been shut to the benefit of the current partnership and detriment of the younger generation, an Obama presidency with a filibuster-proof Democratic legislature would be an absolute boom for many Biglaw firms.

Litigation departments will be busier, as 15 noted above. Corporate/transactional groups will be busier because more regulation means more "analysis" and strategic planning (remember the short term Sarbanes-Oxley bump -- I thought that in the wake of that, a $600 billion bankruptcy would be a thing of the past) - granted the higher cap gains tax and worse economic conditions would harm M&A specialists, but the BK groups will get busier and the corporate people can also retool to do reorg work. Tax groups will be busier, as there will be more of an incentive to engage tax specialists under the confiscatory regime the kleptocractic looters will enact.

The current biglaw partners will make out like bandits in the short run, and then in ten years, when our socialist experiment fails, the current partners will be long since retired, living on a grand estate, and the current associates will be waiting in the soup lines with the rest of their prole comrades. Don't worry, Sallie Mae will be able to garnish the current associates' soup, as soup will at that point be treated like currency.

83 - your are correct. I am embarassed - for myself. Please forgive me for my weakness.

my problem is not with "giving back" to those less fortunate than ourselves, my problem is with a presidential candidate who seems to think that the redistribution of wealth is the primary objective of government. it's not. redistribution of wealth is a function of private charity, and it's a moral good. salvation (or ethical correctness, if you prefer) results from my making the right choice when i'm free to spend the money i work insane hours making. it's simple extortion, and glaringly inefficient extortion at that, when my money's taken from me at the point of a gun and spent on "public goods" that end up eating 90 cents on the dollar in administrative costs. just look at medicare.

life is not fair, in fact it abjectly sucks for the vast (vast) majority of people -- but that's a platitude and not a policy impetus. those people for whom 72 sheds big tears probably won't ever make it to the deluxe apartment in the sky, but what they can do is work hard, save whatever they can, and put their children in a position to do better for themselves. like, for example, make damn sure your kids work their butts off at school so they can get better jobs and instill the same values in their kids. this is the rising tide that lifts all boats.

the multi-generational accumulation of wealth IS the american way, and doing a little bit better than your parents is the american dream. this is what we should be telling people: work hard, and if your kids and their kids make the right choices and have the right values, your descendants could live the good life. low-income person X doesn't have a positive claim on the fruits of another's labor, he's a hopeful recipient of charity who should be grateful for the crumbs that he does get, and should express that gratitude by using them as an investment in his grandchildren's future.

Honestly, Elie, real black people support Obama.

70 here. 80, I donate plenty of my salary, but way to make yourself feel better about your position of comfort and self-entitlement. I also realize that charities, for a variety of reasons, do not address all need in this country, and there are many roles they simply cannot fulfill.

Nice baseball analogy Elie. You f*cking retard.

Yeah, the Yankees pay more money to their players because of taxes. Damn those taxes, otherwise the payroll would be sliced in half!

Have you ever played this beisbol?

Oh right, you're a catcher.

The premise of the post - that democrats raise taxes and republicans don't - is nothing but spin. Republicans love to spend lots of money (Reagan on defense, Bush II on Iraq) and put it on the credit card for payment later. Well, just like a credit card that comes due someday. That works for those of us who want our grandchildren to pay for our free ride, or who are working too many hours to meet someone and have kids. And if taxes are your big issue, don't forget Palin - she raised taxes in Alaska. I'm not an Elie-basher, but this is a crappy post.

how does obama's tax plan change someone who makes 36k in a year (12 weeks multiplied by 3K)? his new plan should help or at the very least not hurt right?

-nervous T-10 1L

Step off, commies. NObama 2008.

Obama's tax plan = Nervous T-10 1L should kill himself.

94 - you're a prick.

Yeah, I don't know why everyone is so hard on T10 1L, I find most of his posts entertaining. I look forward to seeing if he gets a 1L SA this year. GO T10 1L!

Hey guys, there could be big positives in an Obama win. We can all call each other "comrade" and sound cool like the Russians... honestly, who hasn't been excited about that?

This post blows. The associate who suggested the rebate is a greedy d-bag. 48 and 91 win. Because neither Republicans or Democrats are any good about reducing spending, the choice is not between more taxes and less taxes, it is taxes now versus taxes later. Any younger person (i.e., most readers of this blog) should champion efforts to raise taxes now and stop the older generation from making out like bandits, running up huge deficits, pocketing all of the windfalls themselves and then leaving us with a crappy, crumbling infrastructure, high-tax society. Stop all of the communist talk, too. Marginal income tax rates were over 80% in the 1950s. Right now we're at 35% and Obama wants to return to the top marginal tax rate under Clinton (which was 38 or 39 percent I think). Stop whining and have the guts to realize that with a near $500B deficit in a budget of $2.8T, all of us pay too little in taxes and the sooner we raise them now, the better off we will be in the future.

55 - if you think having a functional government able to perform basic services (and importantly, able to pay for such services, including ones already rendered) makes one into a communist then I suggest you take some remedial continuing ed classes in political science.

I swear to god, anybody even mentions the concept of the government providing some basic functionality, such being paid for via the use of taxation powers, the automatic recourse of Pavlovian internet wingnuts is to scream "COMMUNIST! SOCIALIST!" etc.

That's a very ignorant way to approach things.

74 - your response isn't reactionary, rather it betrays an underlying failure to comprehend the causes of subprime crisis, such failure leading you conveniently to objects of blame which coincide with your political beliefs.

T-10 1L = 01011100111010010101

Suck it.

How much will my taxes go up, if McCain taxes my benefits as income?

I find it ironic that at least 75% of NY biglaw associates will be voting against their self-interest and voting for Obama despite criticizing rural whites for doing likewise. A NY biglaw associate making $200,000 with six figure loans is not wealthy yet Obama will tax people like they are. If my fellow biglaw associates believe they are taxed too little, there is nothing preventing them from donating to the fed. gov. coffers. Democrats should learn to differentiate between wealth and income and biglaw associates should starting voting with their brains.

99 - sounds like the way the left screams "racist" at every opportunity.

Obama's got a white mama!

Who is John Galt?

As a tax lawyer, I am absolutely looking forward to an Obama presidency. Sure my taxes might go up by $2k, but that's peanuts compared to the extra income from all of our new clients.
The tax shelter industry was booming in the 1960s and 1970s, when top marginal rates were 70%. Ah, good times.

Obama, Prince of Thieves.

Obama's sexy!

I'll take the tax increase in order to avoid war with Iran, or Spain. In order to make sure abortion stays legal. In order to keep insane Palin away from the red button.

Greedy little bastards, all of you.

Oh, come on. Lawyers should be smarter than this.

First, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

S&P gave an 8.9% compounded return in the past (approx.) 40 years of Democratic presidents, compared to a 0.4% compounded return in the past (approx.) 40 years of Republican presidents. If you drop Hoover, the Republican figure is still only 4.7%.

Obsession with taxes is silly if you aren't considering the economy at-large. Personally, I'd prefer the economic growth to the marginal gain in income due to lower taxes.

But for all you biglaw associates obsessed with ownership of the exact number written on your paycheck, awesome. There's nothing wrong with ignoring the social context that allows you to earn that paycheck and gives those numbers meaning. Enjoy being a lawyer and wiping your ass with all that paper money in a socio-economic vacuum.

Anyone who thinks Obama and a Democratic congress will stop at the tax cut he has already confessed to probably also thought that Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

100: Right back at ya.

Seriously, name someone for me in a leadership position in the government or in business who did not contribute to the subprime mess.

Hey, the one time everyone more or less acted post-partisan, and they almost bring down the world's financial markets!

64: you sad, sad wo/man. We're in bandaid mode right now -- I guarantee you that the federal investment in various wall street banks will cause even more fun 10 - 20 years down the road. After all, Freddie and Fannie worked out soooooo well.

This is the most retarded and poorly reasoned post I've ever read on ATL.

What if said partner opposed Obama's economic policies, but was voting for him because they favored his foreign policy? Should they be exempt from paying the "Obama Refund?"

If a different partner votes for McCain, should they be forced to join the military and deploy to Iraq? Makes sense to me!

I know! How about if someone votes for McCain, and then the stock market improves under an Obama administration, the McCain voter is forced to turn over all of their capital gains to the Obama voters! After all, the Obama voter is tangentially responsible for the McCain voter's positive change in economic circumstances. Fair is fair.

Dummies - Everyone's taxes will go up. It will be "pay the deficit" deficit time come February/March and the tax cut will no longer be feasible. Bailout-war-healthcare-social security....

I'll cry everyone a river then, but will never cry for the overpaid 6th year who is obsessed with getting "interesting" work as opposed to pitching in where needed!!!

@110. Unfortunately, Iran is run by psychopathic theocrats who want to re-enact the Holocaust. War with them is inevitable. Unlike Obama, McCain recognizes that evil exists in the world, and not all disagreements can be resolved by peaceful means. Peace isn't the highest good -- justice is.

112 - You're right. I need to find out what to do with the millions of dollars in pets.com and other tech stocks that I accumulated during the Clinton era. I haven't checked my portfolio in 10 years, but it was increasing 25% a year during the 90s, so it has to be worth 2-3 times that now (it's not like growth during the Clinton admin was just built on a tech bubble and that that growth totally skews the democratic numbers). Do you think I should sell?

Elie - the person who wrote you that message is retarded, and the only way to deal with this kind of thing is to out him or her.

While I agree that spending has been out of control under Bush II, that doesn't mean increased taxes are the answer. What about the fact that revenues to the government have been at their highest levels under Bush? Doesn't that at least cause pause to the "lower taxes mean deficits" argument? Focus on spending, not taxes.

Also, the impetus behind Obama's tax increases is not deficit reduction, as some on here seem to think. His own statements make clear that he wants wealth redistribution. That is communism. This is not some throwback to the 1950's and HUAC.

@121. All reasonable tax systems are redistributive. There is no possible way that we could fund even a minimal government if each person paid only his share of the government's expenses. I do not pay an equal share of the government's defense expenditures, while Bill Gates pays more. Therefore, the government must look to those who have a greater ability to pay - the rich. The government redistributes because I have equal access to a benefit when I did not share equally in burden of creating that benefit.

That said, we should distinguish between redistribution that is created by allowing citizens equal access to a government benefit that was not funded equally by each citizen (e.g., roads, defense), and redistribution that is created when wealth is taken from one individual and given directly to another. The EITC would be one such example. Even if some limited "direct" redistribution is beneficial to maintain societal stability, such measures should be subject to greater scrutiny.

Communism involves government ownership of that which generates economic benefits. It is not the same as redistribution. While I dislike Obama's proposed policies as much as anyone, conflating redistribution and communism makes you look silly, and undercuts legitimate arguments against Obama's plans.

hey all you TTTwits .............

what does TTT mean????????????????????????????

"That is communism." Spare us the melodrama, social policy does not toggle between capitalism and communism with nothing in-between. Having no wealth redistribution is just as bad for the country as too much wealth redistribution would be / has been.

Next you'll be calling us Soviet sympathizers. This "communism! communism!" hysteria is such a juvenile way of debating the point.

hey all you TTTwits .............

what does TTT mean????????????????????????????

Bottom line is that anyone who works hard, takes risks, and succeeds is punished by Obama's tax plan. Lawyers fall into that category: we go to college, work to get good grades take out loans, take the LSAT, go to law school, take out loans, put in 80 hours a week at a big firm hoping to make partner, and someday, maybe we do. At any stage along the way, we could fail and be stuck with all that debt we've accumulated. The high salaries paid to those who do succeed serve as a reward for success, and an incentive for the youngins to keep trying. Take away the big reward, and people aren't going to work hard and take risks anymore.

Everyone here could have slacked their way through some cheap state college and found a $50,000/yr job in middle management. But we opted to take bigger risks and work harder for the golden ring.

And its not just lawyers who are affected by this. Reward-motivated risk and hard work drives the economy in all professions. Even plumbers: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp

Yikes. I am a first-year associate at a large law firm (I would assume your target demographic) and I am officially done with this blog. How greedy and removed from the problems of the world can you people be?

Obama is going to win, Palin was a stupid, unqualified choice, and McCain has abandoned his principles in desperation.

Iraq, Katrina, Wall Street. R = EPIC FAIL.

All of you biglaw twenty-something associates complaining about paying a little more in taxes -- at a time when millions of people are uninsured, millions more are insured but still going broke over uncovered expenses, and millions of others are losing their jobs -- are selfish entitled pricks.

Signed,
UBP (undecided before Palin)

Kill the non-sequitors. We're talking about the fairness of a tax plan, not whether Obama is a better overall candidate than McCain.

Many of you prefer Obama over McCain because of Obama's stance on social policies, or foriegn policy positions, or because you don't like something about McCain or Palin's character. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have to pretend that Obama's economic plan is anything other than a cruel socialist joke that will reward laziness and punish success.

129 - Democrats can never been honest like that. Democrats see politics in black and white, a candidate is always 100% right or 100% wrong.

Republicans see politics in shades of gray, as demonstrated by the GOP reaction to McCain. Republicans will admit that they disagree with McCain's stance on immigration or campaign finance or the economy. Republicans will admit that their guy is less than perfect on the issues, and they'll call the errors as they see them in the hopes of changing the candidate's mind.

Democrats fight right up until they pick a guy, then they fall in line and no criticism is allowed. You won't see any Democrat display the intellectual honesty that you are calling for.

I'm actually voting for Obama because of his economic policy. In reality, there's no such thing as free lunch, and this country has a big enough deficit. Even if we were to limit all social programs that could be considered socialist, we would still need a tax raise to cover the rampant spending over the last 10 years plus. I believe higher corporate taxes and higher upper bracket taxes are called for. And, yes, those taxes affect me directly. But if I'm not smart enough to tweak my budget to cover a relatively small increase in the taxes I pay, I don't deserve to be in that tax bracket in the first place. I also believe in re-regulation, which, in my opinion, is an economic policy because the de-regulation is what caused the mess we are in right now.
If McCain had more preferable economic policies, I'd vote for him, because I agree with his social and foreign policy positions.
Maybe that makes me the exception rather than the rule, but just figured I'd throw that out there.

William Ayers

Elie smokes NewporTTTs.

Higher corporate taxes just drive companies offshore. The US now has higher corporate taxes than Europe - we need to lower corporate taxes to encourage companies to locate in the US.

112, I didn't read your link, but I know that Hoover was not President in the last 40 years.

Yeah, lawyers who work in biglaw are risk-taking entrepreneurs. Riii-iiiight.

I also love how you whackjobs think that "self interest" is solely defined by saving 2K a year in taxes. And are so sure of that pathetic world-view that you assume everyone voting on some other basis must be crazy. That is even worse than the abortion and flag burning single issue whackos.

You actually live in a community -- you do recognize that much of the country thinks that way, right? That not every issue is a zero-sum game of self interest like the discovery disputes and indemnification clause negotiations to which you dedicate your tiny insignificant lives?

Taxes are a net drain on social utility and should be minimized at all cost. Redistribution of wealth is a fool's paradise and does nothing more than piss off the haves, to the detriment of the have-nots.

When Obama gets elected, and if Charlie Rangel (who is from NYC and should know better than to call people in NYC making $250K "rich") and the rest of the Dems go along with this increase, I will simply go to the USAO until the rates are lowered again. It's bad enough as it is that by the time you add up Feds, FICA, State, NYC taxes, I'm already paying more than 40% of my gross salary. The significant increases Obama has planned make it simply not worth working this hard - and sacrificing my personal life - for the reduced take-home pay.

For those of you that are neoliberal self-haters and claim that "we make enough" or "we'll be fine" with less money -- a big FU#K YOU!!!! I'll decide what's fine for me, thank you very much. Real liberalism is freedom; the new liberalism is slavery. Everyone should read Hayek's Road to Serfdom!!!

@ 64 - Are you Michael Moore?

... Does anyone know the threshold under the Obama tax plan where a person earning less than another person will actually take home more income after taxes? Assuming same credits, deductions and etc.

138, here's one attempted answer (I think):
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/wsj-obamas-tax.html

what everyone seems to be missing is that obama has publicly confessed that he has no intention of balancing any budget. instead of spending untold billions on a war in iraq, he's going to spend untold billions on a second great society entitlement package. all you morons going with the "well, we have to raise taxes to pay off the ridiculous deficit" are either delusional or deliberately trying to hide the ball. what obama and his cronies on the dem side are saying is that they are going to take more of my money and put it to uses that suit their own philosophical and political ends. at no point will this be a national paying-off-the-credit-card: quite the opposite, we've just decided to spend more money we don't have on different things.

the point here is one of government theory. government should not be in the business of reducing income disparity. raise my taxes because the highways are crumbling and overcrowded, use the excess money to keep me safe from islamo-fascists with NBC weapons, or even put more cops on the street to keep criminals at bay. do not raise my taxes -- and it's WAY more than $2000 when you figure in the upcapped FICA taxes and reworked capital gains taxes -- so you can take money from me because i've got "enough" and give it to someone else. i don't care what they use it for, it's not their money. it's my money that i earned through sweat equity, and it's my business to decide how and how much i give to charity cases.

135 and 127 are right.