That he is the only candidate who realizes that the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea gives some evidence that either he has economic savvy or listens to people who know what they are talking about.
In any case, he was at the U. of Chicago, where you absorb economics. 
Has any Republican tried to claim yet that eliminating the gas tax will result in increased revenue?
I’m satisfied that Obama is a pretty bright fellow, done his homework. And you don’t seem to be contradicting me so much as chafing me about a rhetorical structure. I think Obama knows more about economics than I, and, if he doesn’t, he knows how to find out. That’ll do.
Which, seems to me, does very much underline my point about who he listens to. You are not suggesting that he’s going to bring on that crew of Ricky Retardos? Well, then, what?
No, not much I suppose. Mostly I hear about how eonomics proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the changes I seek are impossible, can’t be done, never happen. Or a different set of PhD.s tells me, sure, can be done, why not?
I’m sure you know much more about economics than I, John. Or, at the very least, more than I want to.
From your lips to the Ears.
A perfect example. You obviously mean something by “rational” but it has nothing in common with any English dictionary definition.
Not Chicago School economics, I hope!
Their ideas about pizza are pretty fucked up. Not to make too much of that, but still…
If they compare to the same standards of semantic rigor, critical reasoning, and factual basis displayed here, it would see to be not worthy of the effort.
Stranger
No, in fact, it wouldn’t. Not to defend anything that Bush has done in this arena, but at least his lower tax rates have kept the economy stimulated to some extent; raising taxes while at the same time increasing spending, and growing the deficit is a textbook example of how to cause a recession/depression.
Spending is the problem. Spending, spending, spending. If governmental spending continues to expand, everything else we’re discussing here is a moot point.
And I’m pleased as punch to be someone able to complain about the how much this tax increase will cost me. And while we’re talking about tax increases, why should my dividends be taxed at a 15% rate, while my labor is taxed at 25%? I agree that dividends should not be subject to social security tax, but raising the income tax on dividends to match the income tax on labor certainly seems more fair. Those two changes would raise quite a lot of money. Throw in the repeal of the estate tax elimination, and there may be enough for health care, especially considering that the government already provides health care for a lot of people already.
Looking at it realistically, the government provides health care for the elderly via medicare, the indigent via medicaid, federal prisoners, veterans, retired and current government employees, and active duty military. Other than the last two groups, these have to be the sickest people in North America, and based on the reports I’ve seen on head trauma among active duty military, I’m not sure that they’re as healthy as all that these days. All the new system would need to do is start covering the healthy ones.
Not a chance the OP is actually going to be addressed with anything like a real figure, is there? Not even a ball park? And educated speculation? A WAG?? Anything?
-XT
Y’all do remember Obama’s chief economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee?
The libertarians like him, he’s a big free market guy. He’s also a bit of a tax expert.
I haven’t seen a serious scoring of what restoring the pre-Bush tax rates for upper income earners, but here is a PDF of a 2002 projection of the revenue that was not collected because of the 2001 tax cuts. If Obama says he wants to restore the tax rates for those earning over $250k, we’re looking at roughly the top 3% of earners.
In that case, we’re looking at the neighborhood of at least $80 billion per year in additional tax revenue. It could be higher, depending if there are any proposals relating to the estate tax or taxes on investment dividends, to name two examples. Those taxes aren’t considered in the linked table because they were enacted later.
also…
In terms of tax avoidance, it also depends on specifics, but I think the general idea of raising taxes usually includes closing down avenues of avoiding income taxes. And it’s not like people think: oh, my tax rates have gone down, so I’m going to stop using whatever shelters are available to me until tax rates go back up. I’m of the mind that people are always trying to minimize their tax burden, and I have a hard time seeing that an increase of what, 4% in the top marginal rate is going to drive people to extraordinary measures. I think rates of compliance with the tax system would be pretty much in line with the pre-2001 rate structure, which is what the linked table is based upon.
Thanks Ravenman for tackling the actual question of the OP. So, we are looking at a ball park of something like $80 Billion then? Ok, that gives me some food for thought. I’ll look over the PDF file when I get back home this weekend. I appreciate the info.
-XT
So, of that $80 billion, Obama is going to spend the first $80 billion on tax relief for the lower and middle classes, and the rest on health care? Uh, okay.
Regards,
Shodan
Taxes might depress the economy to some degree, but on the other hand government spending does stimulate it.
Which is probably the most inefficient way to spend the money, particularly in such a way, because government is such a large player, to effectively distort the market…a very Keynesian look about it. Demand should be stimulated through the people, less we welcome more socialism.
A stockbroker friend of mine just told me Obama’s prospective election has Wall Street in a panic because Obama plans to raise the capital gains tax. I can’t find anything about that on his website, specifically – does “reversing Bush’s tax cuts” apply to the CGT as well? I thought he was just talking about income tax.
(My friend also insists CGT is wrong because its a “double tax,” the money represented by securities already having been taxed as corporate income, but that’s another debate.)
A dollar you spend (investment is a different matter) does not stimulate the economy any more than a dollar the government spends, and possibly less, because government spending is sometimes specifically targeted to stimulate depressed sectors.
And Keynesianism is not socialism.
And Keynesian economics have never been discredited, though some Dopers seem to take that as an established fact, for some reason.
I wonder if your friend has a principled objection to sales taxes, since income spent on stuff has already been taxed. :rolleyes: