Comments on: Read Declan McCullagh's Lips: No New Taxes

CNET Columnist Says Recession Is Worst Possible Time To RaiseTaxes

[obamauberall]

The difference is that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth -down- the ladder, McCain and company want to redistribute the wealth -up- the ladder (those poor starving CEOs!).

I''''m not a CEO. I know who I''''m voting for.

Posted by aakalan at 12:06 PM : Oct 29, 2008

I''d like to see Obama get Joe the Bank Executive out on the McCain campaign asking McCain and Palin how McCain plans to make his life easier if he only earns $10M per year.

That would truly be hilarious!

[penigma82]

First, the nonsense that handing money upward works, was clearly disproven by the past 30 years. Manufacturing at all levels, including high-tech manufacturing, fell. No new job markets were created which weren''t subsequently snuffed out by offshoring.

Second - the top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 90%, it was 70% in the 70''s - both were FAR more boom times, far more productive times, with far greater per capita investment in jobs, than today or the 90''s or 80''s.

Third, the concept of having the rich pay in measure to their benefit isn''t socialism, but the reverse, allowing them to use their power and influence to take more and more of a share of the nation''s wealth (and in this case flee to Bermuda) IS at best, feudalism, economic aristocracy done large.

[obamauberall]

A corporation making $200,000 has a tax rate of 39%
A corporation making $500,000 has a tax rate of 35%

Yes, it''''s true corporations with income of more that $330,000 pay less in taxes by percentage than those making between $150,000 and $330,000...

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 12:01 PM : Oct 29, 2008

Everyone''s got to be asking themselves in the first place...why are the percentages EVER different?

Having a percentage based tax rate is supposed to already take into account that the more you make the more you pay. Who''s brilliant idea was it to make different rates?? LOL!

Give all of America one tax rate and be done with it.

[aakalan]

To all of you right-wing zealots: How about a little rationality for a moment, instead of Republican talking points.

"Wealth Redistribution" is the cornerstone of all humane democracies, and it has been so in the US almost since its inception.

Government takes wealth from those who create it, and redistributes it to serve the common good. That''s how we get roads, bridges, armies, education systems. I don''t have children, yet I subsidize the education of all the children in my town, village, city, state, country. That''s "wealth redistribution"! My taxes go to build roads and bridges that I may never use. That''s "wealth redistribution". So is prosecuting wars I don''t agree with.

The "conservative", Bush-style "wealth redistribution" simply moves the wealth up the ladder to the wealthy - to the traders, bankers, insurance companies, drug companies and oil companies. And we already know how well they''ve served the "common good" :-)

Both McCain and Obama are, quite rightly, seriously into wealth redistribution, no matter how much McCain, Palin and their conservative cronies lie about it.

The difference is that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth -down- the ladder, McCain and company want to redistribute the wealth -up- the ladder (those poor starving CEOs!).

I''m not a CEO. I know who I''m voting for.

[obamauberall]

I happen to like both magazines - but it''''s important to know where he''''s coming from in order to evaluate what he''''s saying, mainly that he''''s not some "neutral journalist guy".

Posted by shingles1 at 11:44 AM : Oct 29, 2008

Does neutral even exist when it comes to the elections?

Anyway, I respect his opinion, and I think he''s correct in his thinking....

He''s just incorrect about what Obama wants to do with taxes and spending. Obama''s tax cuts and increases are going to boost the economy from the bottom-up...not from the top-down like the failed Bush economics.

Also, be aware...both economic strategies are socialistic in nature. This is what disturbs me about McCain and his followers so much. They seem to think that the "trinkle-down" tax plan isn''t socialist.

Scary.

[steeepe]

Appreciate your comments, Declan, but the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman disagrees with you. Obama''s tax plan doesn''t affect most tax payers, only those who can easily afford paying more to help reduce the national debt. Getting out of Iraq, which Obama favors, will also help. When tax rates were higher on the wealthy, the U.S. had unprecedented prosperity. The GOP and its conservative economic policies have brought nothing but bad news for years. Time to give the Democrats a chance -- it won''t get any worse and most likely will get better.

[shingles1]

CBS isn''t giving you the complete information on Declan McCullagh.

1. He'' not an economist. He specializes in computer security and privacy issues.

2. He''s a libertarian - and has written for Reason and the American Conservative.

I happen to like both magazines - but it''s important to know where he''s coming from in order to evaluate what he''s saying, mainly that he''s not some "neutral journalist guy".

[bobnjersey]

[When 40% of "taxpayers" pay no income tax at all and actually get a govt. "taxrefund" (giveaway) and Obama wants to increase that to more than 50-60% even calling for a reduction or elimination on lower income earners Payroll taxes. If that''''s not wealth redistribution than I don''''t know what is. Instead of raising people up to get off the dole he wants to increase it so more are on the dole]
[Posted by standlee5 at 11:34 AM : Oct 29, 2008]

what dole? you just stated they have payroll taxes ... which means they''re on a payroll ... which means they have a job.

there''s a reduction in payroll taxes at the higher levels as well ... with certain deductions capping at specific thresholds. why isn''t this considered wealth redistribution? it''s no different than not assessing the same payroll tax levels at specific lower thresholds.

[bill517]

Why must we keep re-learning the same old lessons:
a)income disparity is necessary in a healthy economy; some people are more productive than others
b) the sparkplug that makes the economy go is INCENTIVE; marxism failed because of this simple obvious fact. We''re beating a proven DEAD HORSE.

PLEASE PEOPLE, LET''S NOT RE-LIVE THE FAILED EXPERIMENTS OF THE PAST

[bobnjersey]

[This is not a third world country and Obama wants to govern like it is. His entire campaign has been on wealth redistribution.]
[Posted by standlee5 at 11:29 AM : Oct 29, 2008]

it''s also known as the irs tax code. his proposal is to return the marginal rate to what it was before bush''s tax cuts(for that income tier). bush engineered the largest wealth redistribution with his tax proposals in 2001 ... which mccain voted against at the time.

but since ''wealth redistribution'' is fine going in one direction ... and not the other ... it''s understandable you''d be against it.

[standlee5]

When 40% of "taxpayers" pay no income tax at all and actually get a govt. "taxrefund" (giveaway) and Obama wants to increase that to more than 50-60% even calling for a reduction or elimination on lower income earners Payroll taxes. If that''s not wealth redistribution than I don''t know what is. Instead of raising people up to get off the dole he wants to increase it so more are on the dole/

[bobnjersey]

[Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET.]

and clearly a proponent of the ''trickle down'' philosophy of economic theory.

[standlee5]

Increasing taxes on upper income is fine during normal times but this is hardly normal. We''re facing what could be the second big depression. The only jobs Obama intends to create are govt. jobs. and he''s made it clear he''s no friend of business He disdains business and everything it represents. You know seriously he acts like the USA is Kenya. This is not a third world country and Obama wants to govern like it is. His entire campaign has been on wealth redistribution.

[gop_will_win]

This guy must be a leftist liberal loony who wants to redistribute my wealth among the non achievers. You can pulkl my money from my COLD DEAD HANDS!

[bill517]

A technical note: Remember that deficit spending is another form of taxation -- through inflation. McCain''s right: the key is gov''t SPENDING

[timothyone-2009]

Giving a tax break to the majority, as Obama intends to do, will give people who consume more money to consume with, making for a better economy. Giving it to, or leaving it all with the rich will only mean higher stock prices, not a better economy. The rich may call higher stock values a better economy, but that''s only because profit on investments is their source of income. That''s why they''re called the "idle" rich. They don''t work at anything other than looking after their money. And their money is ALL they look after. Our nation people, our children, and our educational systems can all go to heii for all they care.

[ramos937]

I am a small businessman and know that one of the most basic rules in business is, "Maximize income and Minimize costs". This means that the government has to take in as much money as it can (not borrowed money) and spend as little as it can.

Increased taxes - We are going to have to bite the bullet. This means expiration of the Bush tax cuts and increasing certain taxes. Pinful but necessary.

Decrease in Costs - Entitlements are virtually untouchable because of legal complications. Good reductions could include (1) the end of the Iraq war, (2) staging a BRAC like situation for the 700 or so bases we maintain overseas, (3) close to the end of each fiscal year, federal managers try to have a zero balance in their accounts so as not to be penalized the succeeding fiscal year. Somehow, this wasteful practice must end. These are only a few things that could be done.

[penigma82]

Lordy, what a load of revisionist ***.

The overextension of credit (called leveraage then) in buying on the margin lead to the collapse of 1929. Roosevelt wasn''t in office, and Hoover hadn''t promoted taxation as a curative by then. The economy contracted because liquidity vanished, not due taxation, but due to risky ventures evaporating, and taking people''s money with it.

Take a history lesson fella, good lord.

[ubrew12]

I think the stark increases in taxes ushered in by Hoover and Roosevelt led eventually to 50 years of American prosperity and preeminence in world affairs, NOT the opposite as this author seems to think. But, sure, it took a decade for those New Deal infrastructural investments to pay off.

Did you know we''re still getting 20% of our electricity from dams built with high taxes? Some of them built during the Great Depression itself? Think that''s an investment worth making for long term American health? How about most of the roads and bridges you drive on?

Or is your idea of an investment yet another fast food franchise or mass outlet selling Chinese knick-knacks? That''s what, through the low-tax ''free market'', we''ve been investing in for the last 30 years. And it shows...

[ubrew12]

"President Roosevelt endorsing a further increase in the top income tax rate, which reached 79 percent in 1936....Roosevelt claimed that forcible wealth redistribution was "the American thing to do." [yet] During the Great Depression, the stock market fell by 90 percent, the economy contracted by 30.5 percent, and unemployment reached 24.9 percent. "

What is stunning to me is that people like this can understand that deep recessions like the one we''re about to experience take decades to make, yet for some reason the actions taken by Roosevelt and others to recover from them are supposed to take mere years to work. For 30 years, Republicans have been playing ''dont charge the rich, charge the children''. Well, the children have arrived. I believe they should raise taxes to pay decades of nonupkeep on our nations infrastructure and on energy independence, which their elders ''passed on'' to them along with everything else. I DONT believe they should cut spending which, during a deep recession may be all thats keeping many people alive. And yes, they should raise taxes to pay their elders debt.