My Brilliant Career. Partime. Maybe.

Well anyway, I'm thinking about it:



I took an online aptitude test, and scored 100%. It seemed mostly to be testing if I was actually paying attention. Not too hard to do.
     

Renewal of Tax Cuts: What's at stake

How Congress' tax-cut decision may affect economy

On this, economists agree: Extending tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush for low- and middle-income people would strengthen the weak economy.

The question is what to do about the highest-paid 3 percent of taxpayers. Should Congress let their tax cuts expire at year's end as scheduled? Extend them for only a while? Or make them permanent?

It isn't just a debate over how much money high-income Americans should get to keep. It's about how much their tax cuts might aid the economy. And how much they'll affect the budget deficit years from now.

But first, consider what would happen next year if Congress let the tax cuts for everyone expire as scheduled. According to Moody's Analytics, the deficit would drop to $732 billion. That's well below the $1.3 trillion deficit for the budget year that ended Sept. 30.

At the same time, the economy would suffer, Moody's says: Growth would tail off to just 0.9 percent next year. That's scarcely more than a recessionary pace. And unemployment would average 10.7 percent next year.

That's because higher taxes would leave people with less money to spend. Businesses would be less inclined to hire. Economic growth would slide. Yet if Democrats and Republicans can't reach a deal during the post-election lame-duck session that began this month, taxes will rise across the board in January.

Republicans triumphant in the midterm elections insist that everyone, regardless of income, should continue to enjoy the tax cuts approved during George W. Bush's presidency. [...]

It goes on to give three options that could play out, and their probable consequences. It's a short but informative article, well worth the read.

Then there's this:

Thus Does the Economy Grow

[...] Here, then, are ten practical tips for elected Republican officials, who are torn between trying to govern as a majority party and trying to oppose President Obama’s agenda as a minority party.

[...]

Six. Don’t delink income-tax rates. The strategy we developed in 2001 and 2003 worked. Forced by reconciliation rules to sunset the tax cuts, we set them all to expire on the same day. President Bush reframed the top income-tax rates as small-business tax rates. This argument won the day in 2003 and 2010 and will win again as long as the expiration dates remain synchronized. Don’t fall for the trap of temporarily extending the top rates and permanently extending the others. This would guarantee future increases in the top rates.

Seven. Offer to help the president expand free trade and open investment. Rebuild the center-right free-trade coalition. The president will need to deliver a few Democrats to offset the protectionist Republicans (darn them). You can fight economic isolationism, raise American standards of living, help American allies in Latin America and Asia, cooperate with the president, and split congressional Democrats. That’s a five-part win.

[...]

Read all ten, they're good.
     

Mathamatics are not Partisan

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth
Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.

President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:

• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels. [...]

The whole thing is very detailed, exposing each flawed premise being used to blame tax cuts for deficits, and then goes on to clearly demonstrate how it's government spending that's driving up the deficits.

Tax cuts allow people to spend and invest their own money, which stimulates the private sector economy and creates jobs, which creates more taxpayers, thereby increasing revenues also. But if the government continues to spend beyond the revenues they are bringing in, well nothing can "fix" that, other than cutting spending. Raising taxes won't do it because that means less jobs and overall less tax revenue being generated.

It's math, numbers. You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't over-tax or you will reduce tax revenues. The solution: live within our means. Duh.


Related Links:

Why the "Recovery" is stalling

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

Obama's Anti-Business Policies Are Our Economic Katrina
     

How John McCain will restore our economy

From John McCain's October 4th Radio Address:

[...] Pressure and crisis often have a way of revealing the best within us -- of showing what we are made of, and how much we can achieve when we are put to the test. This is true of the grave challenges we face in Washington today. Yet it should not require extreme emergencies to bring out the best in us, or to bring us together in service to the common good. We are supposed to do that even in the calmest of times. And if we worked together more often in that spirit, perhaps there would be fewer crises, close-calls, and near-disasters confronting our nation.

Our government is on the wrong track, our economy is struggling, and we got even more bad news with yesterday's unemployment report. It is a time for leadership and a plan to create jobs and get our country on the right track.

I believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. I believe in rewarding hard work and letting people keep the fruits of their labor. We will keep tax rates low. We will simplify the current tax code. We will double the child exemption from 3500 dollars to 7000 dollars. We will give every family a 5000 dollar tax credit to buy their own health insurance or keep their current plan, and we will open up the national health-care market to expand choices and improve quality. And my administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods. These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I intend to abolish them.

I believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans, so they can create more jobs and keep our economy growing. So we will cut business taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, to give American businesses a new edge in competition. We will spur new investment through R&D tax credits and expensing of equipment. And we will protect the right of workers to decide for themselves, by secret ballot, whether to unionize.

As president, I will also set this country on the straightest, swiftest path to energy independence. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. In all of this, and more, we will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity -- jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.

If I am elected president, I will also act immediately with reforms to restore fairness, integrity, and financial sanity to the institutions that have failed us on Wall Street. We will apply new rules to Wall Street, to end the frenzies of speculation by people gaming the system, and to make sure that this present crisis is never repeated. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It was hard to chose and excerpt, it's full of great things, read (or listen to) the whole thing.

     

Which will benefit you, and our country, more?

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
You can follow the link to see a bigger image, and a summary of what the chart's data conveys in practical terms. It's wealth creation VS wealth redistribution.

McCain's tax plan would let us keep more of our own money, and let businesses invest more in creating jobs. The last thing our economy needs right now is a "Jimmy Carter" style tax burden plan. I'm old enough to remember how that worked out; we can do better.

John McCain's Health Care Plan is also something I'm enthusiastic about:

The Strengths of McCain's Health Care Plan
As someone who buys his own health insurance, I appreciate the way it will level the playing field and help me and others make our own, affordable health care choices, without depriving anyone of anything they are already getting. It's a win/win plan.
     

Who will create more jobs for America?

That would be the candidate who helps those who create the jobs. Duh. And that candidate is John McCain, not Barack Obama. From Nealz Nuze:

OBAMA A JOB KILLING MACHINE

One of the amazing things about this election is that there are so many people out there who are eager to vote for Obama are people who are very concerned about their jobs ... and yet Obama is by far the greater threat to their job security of the two. Just two examples:

1. Obama wants to raise taxes on the very people who we depend on for 70% of existing jobs and 80% of new jobs. Obama hides these tax increases behind his class warfare rhetoric saying that he is only going to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year. The problem here is most of America's small businessmen and women fall smack dab into this territory. They run a small business, they employ several people, and they report all of their business income on their personal tax returns. Just what do you think happens when their taxes go up? Do they take the hit themselves? Not if they can help it, they don't. They look for ways to cut businesses expenses to compensate for the tax increase. Well, guess what? You're a business expense. Good luck with that.

2. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections, and he has the full Democrat congress ready to go along. This will mean that the Democrat's precious unions will be able to organize a workplace simply by intimidating a majority of the workers to sign a petition saying they want to unionize? Secret ballot? No way! Now when this so-called "Card Check" bill passes businesses are going to be looking for an escape valve ... a way to avoid having to deal with a union workplace. After all, we see how it worked out for the American auto industry. How do you escape? You pack up and move to a more business-friendly location. Millions of jobs have already fled our shores to escape our punishing tax system. Now will millions more run for the hills to escape forced-unionization? Businesses that can't flee? They'll be looking for ways to increase automation and reduce the number of employees. Count on it.

But that's OK. Obama has the rhetoric. He has the narrative. He has celebrity worship and mass hysteria behind him. It's going to be an interesting four (or two) years.

(bold emphasis mine) If jobs matter, then stop trying to punish, impede and drive away those who would create them.
     

Why John McCain will be good for America

A solid economic plan that makes sense. From the WSJ online:

John McCain Has a Tax Plan To Create Jobs

John McCain's tax policies are designed to create jobs, increase wages and allow all Americans -- especially those in the hard-pressed middle class -- to keep more of what they earn. His plan achieves these goals in three important ways.

First, he proposes a package of tax incentives that will create jobs and raise earnings by inducing firms to invest more in the U.S. Second, he is strongly committed to blocking any increase in tax rates while doubling the personal exemptions for families with children, which will reduce the tax burden on working Americans. Third, he proposes a new, refundable tax credit that will increase health-care coverage, reduce the cost of health care, and provide more funds for families and individuals to purchase health care.

Here's how the three components of Sen. McCain's tax plan will work in practice.

To create jobs, Mr. McCain will reduce the corporate tax rate -- now at 35% the second highest among all industrial countries -- to one that doesn't penalize firms for doing business here. To encourage small businesses to expand, he will fight against higher tax rates on their income.

To increase wages, Mr. McCain will provide incentives to raise productivity, which leads to higher wages. To increase productivity, he will provide incentives for developing and applying new technologies by expanding the tax credit for research and development, and by making that credit permanent.

More savings and investment in businesses also raise productivity. Mr. McCain will stimulate saving by keeping tax rates low on the returns to saving in the form of dividends and capital gains. He will also allow faster depreciation of assets, which encourages investment. And he will strengthen the incentive to save by reducing the maximum estate tax rate, with a substantial, untaxed exemption.

In stark contrast to Barack Obama, Mr. McCain believes that tax policy should be used to foster the creation of jobs and higher wages through economic growth, rather than to redistribute incomes. The economy is not a zero-sum game in which some people can enjoy higher incomes only if others are made worse off. [...]

Excellent! Read the whole thing, these are great ideas that will GROW our economy. The Democrats would bog it down and strangle it by punishing achievement and removing incentive. I remember the Jimmy Carter years. We can do better.
     

Gasoline prices and "emotional satisfaction"

The Emotional Obfuscation of Gas Prices. That was going to be my title for this post, because the truth of the situation is actually very simple. However, the truth isn't always "emotionally satisfying", which is why it's not being addressed honestly. Economist Thomas Sowell explains:

Too "Complex"?

[...] Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries-- India and China-- having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world's oil supply?

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.

[...]

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians-- since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?

Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits.

But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.

How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes-- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I'm not against emotions, but they need to be held in check with reasoning and facts. We have both a reasoning nature and an emotional nature for a reason. Balance. Politicians who rely on emotion as their primary appeal would sabotage debate in favor of feelings.

Feelings that are not based on facts can lead to highly destructive consequences. In addressing our energy needs realistically, we need more than emotional manipulation. We need to open our eyes and have a reality check. It would benefit us to do so not just regarding gas prices, but for the whole of the presidential debate. Less emotions, more facts. Reality, please. Too much is at stake.
     

Cut Corporate Taxes and Help our Economy

We are strangling out own economy. Would you believe that even in US states with low-level state taxes, the corporate tax rate is higher than FRANCE and 25 other major countries? Have a look, courtesy of Nealz Nuze:

THE TRUTH ABOUT CORPORATE TAXES

The Tax Foundation has released a new study. A study that will, no doubt, get little media attention. And why not? Well, because it may be a bit boring .. and because many on the left (and that would be the media) don't particularly want you to understand these things. After all .. the study flies directly in the face of the liberal agenda. This new study shows that most American states tax job providers at higher rates than any other developed country in the world. If you were not educated in government schools you will immediately see that this could be a problem.

If you click on the link, it will show a state-by-state break down that adds each state's corporate taxes on top of the federal corporate tax rate. When you do this, it shows that half of the states in this country have a higher rate than any other nation. Even in states with fairly low state-level corporate taxes – states like Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming – the corporate tax rate is still higher than France and 25 other major countries. Take a gander:

• 25 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
• 35 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
• 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
• All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

The study comes to a not-so-shocking conclusion, if you listen to the Neal Boortz Show or read Nealz Nuze .. "If federal lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive globally, they will have to partner with state officials to lower the nation's overall corporate tax burden." Or -- here's a wild concept – enact the FairTax.

In a related study by three prominent economists at the Tax Foundation, employees suffer most when their corporate employers are forced to pay high corporate taxes. This basically runs counter to the theories that have prevailed in American politics for decades ... that corporate taxes hurt investors. But this study found that workers bear 70% of the burden of corporate income taxes.

(bold emphasis mine) Europe, even with all it's socialism, has lower corporate taxes than many of our states. And the countries in Europe that are doing best economically, like Denmark, have cut their corporate taxes the lowest. It obviously works, so why aren't we doing the same?


Related Link:

There's no such thing as corporate tax