4 ms·

It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion doll

It is my unsupported opinion that economists have Bush fatigue just like everybody else, and are eager to see the regime of permanent deficits and trillion dollar wars out on the streets. Obama does appear at times to be thoughtful, and his advisors are centrists. I think economists are hoping for a second Clinton, which would certainly be better than a third Bush. I hope they are right. It is my unsupported opinion given my anecdotal interactions with people that the following quote is the explaining factor of The Economist piece: 'Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good. The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.' On that, I whole-heartedly agree with them.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  >"Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy." I haven't seen that argument made. Perhaps you could link to it? I have seen the tax cuts opposed on economic grounds because of the deficit. I have seen them opposed on philosophical grounds because the author believes the tax code should be even more "progressive". But I haven't seen that argument made based on economic reasoning.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Sure, here's a great summary by Krugman: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_kru... Explains why capital gains is largely just a loophole in the tax code exploited by the uber-rich. Also, if you dig around through public data, you find that the top 10% of Americans make about 70% of the income and pay about 70% of the personal taxes. Sounds fair right? However, the top 1% make about 47% and pay only 39%, meaning the next 9% make about 23% but pay 31%. Is it just at all that the top 1% of America has a lower tax burden than the next 9%? Thank capital gains taxes for that. I can't find the data, but if you were to break this down even further by 10th of a percent, you'd probably find that even more exaggerated.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out, the day-trader who made a mint. In short, the transitional folks. You keep slightly-rich people from becoming super-rich. The really rich don't seem to be encumbered by any one nation's tax laws. My opinion only. Sorry for butting in. I was hoping you guys would cover this point but I haven't seen it so far in your discussion.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        It sounds like you're describing the illegal hiding of money, which I'm sure does happen. But I would think that most wealthy people would rather not risk going to jail, and I do know that you cannot just move overseas to get out of taxes. You can renounce your US citizenship, but they can actually deny that if they think you're doing it to save taxes. But beyond that vague, general knowledge I certainly don't know much about ways the ultra-wealthy evade taxes. I do know that they didn't have the gaping capital gains loophole until now, and as far as I know they didn't all move to other countries.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Right, and McCain, even without public health care, will lead to a bigger deficit than Obama. Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Prrometheus 18y ago
>"Economists really hate the Bush tax cuts (which McCain now supports making permanent) because they favor the non-working ultra-wealthy." I haven't seen that argument made. Perhaps you could link to it? I have seen the tax cuts opposed on economic grounds because of the deficit. I have seen them opposed on philosophical grounds because the author believes the tax code should be even more "progressive". But I haven't seen that argument made based on economic reasoning.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Sure, here's a great summary by Krugman: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_kru... Explains why capital gains is largely just a loophole in the tax code exploited by the uber-rich. Also, if you dig around through public data, you find that the top 10% of Americans make about 70% of the income and pay about 70% of the personal taxes. Sounds fair right? However, the top 1% make about 47% and pay only 39%, meaning the next 9% make about 23% but pay 31%. Is it just at all that the top 1% of America has a lower tax burden than the next 9%? Thank capital gains taxes for that. I can't find the data, but if you were to break this down even further by 10th of a percent, you'd probably find that even more exaggerated.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Seems like that assumes that the top one percent or so are some kind of trapped citizenry. Wouldn't they just move assets/gains/themselves offshore? Seems like if anybody had the ability to change their life parameters to avoid taxes, it would be the uber-wealthy. By taxing capital gains, you hit the millionaire store-keeper who sold his shop and is now retired living on investments, the startup guys just cashing out, the day-trader who made a mint. In short, the transitional folks. You keep slightly-rich people from becoming super-rich. The really rich don't seem to be encumbered by any one nation's tax laws. My opinion only. Sorry for butting in. I was hoping you guys would cover this point but I haven't seen it so far in your discussion.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      It sounds like you're describing the illegal hiding of money, which I'm sure does happen. But I would think that most wealthy people would rather not risk going to jail, and I do know that you cannot just move overseas to get out of taxes. You can renounce your US citizenship, but they can actually deny that if they think you're doing it to save taxes. But beyond that vague, general knowledge I certainly don't know much about ways the ultra-wealthy evade taxes. I do know that they didn't have the gaping capital gains loophole until now, and as far as I know they didn't all move to other countries.