Traps

gunnut

I have never heard of this proposal. If it's true, I will switch my vote from abstain to McCain.

And what is this "costing $100 billion a year" deal that liberals always like to use? This money is not the government's money. It's the people's money. What did the government do to deserve this money? It doesn't manufacture anything. What services does it provide? Charge us for those services. But don't declare tax money as if it's somehow a "right" of the government.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

JAD_333

In an otherwise lofty discussion of economic pressures facing Labor in the UK and the candidates in the US election, I wonder why you dropped altitude to make a statement like this: "Once the Obama versus Clinton furore calms down, attention will turn to McCain and these policies as well as other issues like his own version of the Reverend Wright, namely the Reverend John Hagee, who has some very “interesting” views

That's misleading. Hagee is not McCain's paster of 20 years, and that makes a world of difference. In any case, McCain is refusing to answer any more questions on the subject, so don't expect an emotional speech from him about Hagge and his grandmother.

And, BTW, you've mentioned Pat Robertson several times. Why? Hardly anyone takes him seriously.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Ironduke

You're way off the mark with Hagee. The only similarities are that Hagee and Wright are pastors, McCain and Obama are running for President. There the similarities end. McCain took an endorsement from a guy he'd met once, shortsighted but nothing more.

The only time anybody's going to hear about Hagee is when Obama gets sniped about Wright as the contest goes on, and somebody nobody listens to says "what about Hagee?", and nobody cares.

McCain is not a personality that lends himself well to being defined by others, he's already a largely known quantity. Obama is not.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Traps

Guys while Hagee may be off the mark I'm not so sure the say same can be said about his tax proposals.

I followed those local elections in Britain closely - Brown was handed his head.

This morning our time I saw Billary and Obama pounding the tax issues.

I'm sure the message is getting through to them.

Ironduke

His corporate tax proposal seems to make sense -- at 35% we have the highest rate in the industrialized world behind Germany.

Traps

Guys I'm not anti-McCain I'm anti-Billary.

My point is this - because we no longer have clear left and right as we had in the good ol' days, punters are looking at specifics in terms of a candidate's policies.

While many of us (including me) in the high earning bracket who pay corporate tax, have shelters etc might be happy to have the reduction - the general man in the street is going to react exactly like the British did to Gordon Brown.

This morning Obama and Billary were hitting the tax trail hard.

Gordon Brown was backpeddaling at a rate of knotts.

Those who benefit from McCain's tax cut are a fraction of those who will get pissed off.

gunnut

In that case, Obama should be vulnerable when his opponents hammer him on the federal gas tax issue. He absolutely refuses to "help the common man" by halting teh federal gas tax. His opponents can say that a sales tax is a regressive tax which disproportionally affects the lower income. Why would he be against helping the average Joe?

His reasoning is it wouldn't have amounted to much since the federal gas tax is only $0.184/gal.

Traps

Gunnut :0) Did you see Obama when they threw them at him on stage today?

He looked slightly flustered I'm not sure he knew what the question was. Billary as Billary does simply gushed whatever everyone wanted to hear.

gunnut

No sir I did not. I'm not surprised though. The man is not that great a communicator as portrayed by the elite left wing media. Obama stumbles and yammers as much as Bush without a script on the teleprompter.

dalem

It's true. McCain wants to drop the corp rate to 25%.

-dale

astralis

gunnut,

i would argue that it is smart for mccain to ask for a drop in the corporate tax- it helps attract international investment and boost domestic investment by corporations, while the tax itself does not contribute much to government funds (and is widely dispersed, making it inefficient).

i would argue AGAINST cutting the federal gas tax- the difference is not enough to help either the american people (as mccain says), nor is it enough to help the gasoline companies (if they keep the difference). and the tax goes to an important sector, building up the transportation network of the US- a government good which helps the economy.

i believe hillary was also in favor of the gas tax relief, which has been lambasted by economists. her response was to call economists "elite" and not worthy of consideration.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

gunnut

That can be said about personal income tax as well. The revenue is distrubuted too wide and inefficient. I'm for cutting taxes so you'll get no argument from me here.

That's a very valid argument. It's probably the most sensible for any taxation if there is one other than for national defense. However, what I'm afraid of is congress raiding this money and diverting it for other uses like pork and welfare. California has a history of raiding all funds for their welfare.

That may have something to do with her proposal to tax the oil companies to make up for the shortfall from halting the gas tax. In the end, the oil companies will just pass the cost on to the consumers. After the summer, this new tax on the oil companies will stay while the gas tax will come back. Making gasoline even more expensive.

JAD_333

Corporate is not a huge part of overall income tax revenue, but it's not exactly small potatos.

In 2006 it was about 15% or $381 billion of $2.36 trillion the IRS collected.

You, me and unincorporated businesses made up 44% or $1.236 trillion and the rest came from employment taxes, mainly FICA (half paid by corporations and businesses).

A cut in the corporate income rate from 35% to 25% would save corporations about $110 billion annually (using 2006 as a base), less in a recession.

I agree with you that a cut would help stimulate business competition and capital investment, which would be good, but the important question is, how will we make up shortfall?

We could cut Fed spending by eliminating most earmarks, which far exceed $110B annually. That would be a very productive tradeoff, IMO, a far better use of money than tossing it away on pet projects. I am sure McCain has that in mind.


Well, you're not running for president last I heard. Look, Obama put his finger on it when he called it election year politics. But he's missing the point that the old pols see clearly. A candidate has to demonstrate that he cares for people's hardship in concrete ways even if the relief proposed isn't all that great. The average person would probably see a savings of around $50 for the whole summer. Not much, but thanks for thinking of us anyway.

It gets a little better for guys like me who have to drive for work and burn about 300-500 gals a month. We'd save about $200-$300.

It gets better for long-haul truckers. One large trucking company like Con-Way consumes millions of gallons every year. Would a savings of $180,000per million gallons reduce shiping costs enough to lower food costs a tad?

The picture looks best in terms of the overall national effect. We consume about 400 million gals A DAY. At 18 cents a gallon, the daily tax haul on that would be $72 million, but you have to discount farm/off road and government users who don't pay the tax. Just for the sake of discussion, let's reduce the haul by 25%. That would come to $54 million DAILY. Multiplying that by the 90 days of summer would put nearly $5 billion into the economy. (I think the actual estimate is higher.) It's not a large, but it helps, and it hardly puts a dent in the highway trust fund.

In any case, McCain and Hillary know it's not a lot of money, but their message is "we care about you."

You can see right through her "elite" comment; it was aimed Obama over the heads of the economists.

Traps

Isn't the question this?

Even though business analysts might see a cut in corporate taxes as a means of drawing investment (good for the economy) the average Joe will see it as being screwed by the corporates.