Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan


SkinsOrlando

Recommended Posts

Buffett is not suprising in the least to me. He is the biggest proponent of the rich don't pay enough taxes and he has been a left leaner with his economic opinions for a while now

Buffett is in favor of closing the loopholes the rich use to get out of taxes they are SUPPOSED to be paying. Not changing the tax structure.

Even if he was, a tax on excess profits by exxon is just going to be passed on, and that would not be a progressive tax, i.e. it would "favor" the rich. Thats a moot point anyways, Exxon is a global company, they would change the structure and become a non-american company and thus, not subject to a windfall profits tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know he's not a Marxist, I wasnt saying im surprised they are on his team, im surprised that he would release a plan like this with those 2 as advisors, because, frankly, this plan is very dumb for several reasons. Buffet and Donaldson know better.

I agree. I'm not happy about this thing either.

However, I don't expect perfection either. Obama would have to propose about 50 more things I disagree with before I would consider voting GOP, given the events of the last 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know he's not a Marxist, I wasnt saying im surprised they are on his team, im surprised that he would release a plan like this with those 2 as advisors, because, frankly, this plan is very dumb for several reasons. Buffet and Donaldson know better.

I am pretty confident in saying that Buffet and Donaldson didn't approve of this. Like with any other campaign, the economic team tends to get ignored.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is: Is this good politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty confident in saying that Buffet and Donaldson didn't approve of this. Like with any other campaign, the economic team tends to get ignored.

I'm sure you are correct.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is: Is this good politics?

Doesnt anyone else find it sad that politicians do this? I do. So much for change we can believe in. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, while there's not a single chance in hell of me voting for McCain, the more time that goes by, the less and less comfortable I get with voting for Obama. You know what, markets take turns, demand makes things more expensive, it's part of life, always has been. It absolutely is not the governments job to protect us from supply and demand, which is essentially what this is attempting to do, at great expense, and for an extraordinarily short period of time. It'll get votes probably, because people want the checks but it's economically irresponsible and stupid. Believe me, I could ****ing use some extra cash right about now, especially with my 300 mile weekly commute but I'm against this and I was against the last two as well.

Where the hell are the reasonable candidates? Why can't we find someone who's going to be fiscally conservative without trying to make us a military/police state? Where's the candidate who'll let me do what the **** I want with my body and my life but won't try and save the whole ****ing world and protect me from my own stupidity with tax $?

Did you really have to call the Paulians into this thread :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffett is in favor of closing the loopholes the rich use to get out of taxes they are SUPPOSED to be paying. Not changing the tax structure.

Even if he was, a tax on excess profits by exxon is just going to be passed on, and that would not be a progressive tax, i.e. it would "favor" the rich. Thats a moot point anyways, Exxon is a global company, they would change the structure and become a non-american company and thus, not subject to a windfall profits tax.

In general, taxes are not "just passed on." That is a myth that comes from a basic misunderstanding of economics.

Companies charge what the market will bear. No more, no less. If people are willing to pay 4 dollars for Company X's item, and you cut the taxes on Company X, guess what Company X will charge for that item... yep - it will still charge 4 dollars. Company X will just make more profit.

Likewise, if the market will bear 4 dollars and you increase the taxes on Company X, they will still charge.... 4 dollars for the item. But their profit will be less.

Things are a bit trickier with oil, because the demand for oil is so inelastic. But the same general principle applies, to a degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffett is in favor of closing the loopholes the rich use to get out of taxes they are SUPPOSED to be paying. Not changing the tax structure.

Even if he was, a tax on excess profits by exxon is just going to be passed on, and that would not be a progressive tax, i.e. it would "favor" the rich.

First off, the tax increases are never passed 100% on to the consumer and since the $1000 would only go to lower income families, the net gain for those with lower income would far exceed a short term spike in gas prices for all. If the prices changes and average of .03 per gallon due to this tax (which is not a conservative number) it would take thousands of gallons to see that break dissappear and that scenario is not a reality. Because the tax would not go to all gas that comes into the US but only US companies, there would be pricing diaprity at the US pumps which would cause downward pricing pressures for the US companies as well. Not to mention all of the market factors at the time of the tax which would effect how that cost is pushesd through as well. This is by no means a black and white situation. Most energy analysts say the people most hurt by this will be the individual station owners. Also, here is a Buffett quote for you (on tax rebate vs. lowering corporate or dividend taxes):

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets,"

Just to give you an idea where Buffett is on this topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty confident in saying that Buffet and Donaldson didn't approve of this. Like with any other campaign, the economic team tends to get ignored.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is: Is this good politics?

Buffet is 100% on board with this. Look it up, I guess you don't know Buffet as well as you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, taxes are not "just passed on." That is a myth that comes from a basic misunderstanding of economics.

Companies charge what the market will bear. No more, no less. If people are willing to pay 4 dollars for Company X's item, and you cut the taxes on Company X, guess what Company X will charge for that item... yep - it will still charge 4 dollars. Company X will just make more profit.

Likewise, if the market will bear 4 dollars and you increase the taxes on Company X, they will still charge.... 4 dollars for the item. But their profit will be less.

Things are a bit trickier with oil, because the demand for oil is so inelastic. But the same general principle applies, to a degree.

I understand the economics, I AM an economist. Your last sentence is the key. People HAVE to pay for the gas. Its gone up 400% in the past 10 years, we still consume it at record levels. Exxon CAN just pass it on, just like they do the current taxes on the product.

The caveat is foreign companies that sell gasoline in the States likely wont be subject to a windfall profits tax. That will put Exxon at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. So the other consequence of Obama's plan is to handcuff an american company (that is mostly owned by individual american investors) in favor of foreign companies. So thats real smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationalize, Universal, Redistribution. All words of socialists. I am not saying Obama is a socialist, I am sying the more he opens his economic philosophy up the more it appears socialist. Windfall profit tax. What does that mean? It means taxing a corp we arbitrarily define as being too successful. Exxon-Mobil is posting record profits. Isn't that the point of business? And anyone on this board that thinks that Exxon-Mobil will accept these"windfall profit taxes" is nuts. Any income they stand to lose will be made up for by who? Consumers. Either in passing on the mark up directly to us, or taking their business out of America, which will cost the government....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, the tax increases are never passed 100% on to the consumer and since the $1000 would only go to lower income families, the net gain for those with lower income would far exceed a short term spike in gas prices for all. If the prices changes and average of .03 per gallon due to this tax (which is not a conservative number) it would take thousands of gallons to see that break dissappear and that scenario is not a reality. Because the tax would not go to all gas that comes into the US but only US companies, there would be pricing diaprity at the US pumps which would cause downward pricing pressures for the US companies as well. Not to mention all of the market factors at the time of the tax which would effect how that cost is pushesd through as well. This is by no means a black and white situation. Most energy analysts say the people most hurt by this will be the individual station owners. Also, here is a Buffett quote for you (on tax rebate vs. lowering corporate or dividend taxes):

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets,"

Just to give you an idea where Buffett is on this topic

Wow, you are quoting him from 2003 when he was talking about a dividend tax cut? Wow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ap3IZcasVMqA&refer=us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationalize, Universal, Redistribution. All words of socialists. I am not saying Obama is a socialist, I am sying the more he opens his economic philosophy up the more it appears socialist. Windfall profit tax. What does that mean? It means taxing a corp we arbitrarily define as being too successful. Exxon-Mobil is posting record profits. Isn't that the point of business? And anyone on this board that thinks that Exxon-Mobil will accept these"windfall profit taxes" is nuts. Any income they stand to lose will be made up for by who? Consumers. Either in passing on the mark up directly to us, or taking their business out of America, which will cost the government....

No one ever used the word nationalize or universal. The only people using redistribution are people like you. The $1000 is the same as the 2 $500 check that Georgie has sent us the past 8 years, no one was complaining then. As I see it, the "windfall" tax is just a way to recoup the over $4 billion in free money the US govt. has given the oil companies in the past year through subsadies and industry tax breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffet is 100% on board with this. Look it up, I guess you don't know Buffet as well as you think

Wow Buc. Maybe you should go get some fresh air for a minute.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/25/video-warren-buffett-knocks-obama-over-windfall-profit-tax-on-oil/

Video: Warren Buffett knocks Obama over windfall profits tax on oil

posted at 5:37 pm on June 25, 2008

by Allahpundit

Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Liberal, Obama supporter, capitalist. To paraphrase the Messiah’s own famous line about war, Buffett’s not against all taxes, he’s just against dumb taxes, like ones leveled according to some arbitrary definition of what constitutes a “windfall.” Consider this Obama’s answer to McCain’s gas tax holiday: Foolish economically, but too politically appealing to pass up. At last check, the Straight Talk Express had taken a welcome detour from this position. I wonder if gas prices creep much higher this summer whether he won’t detour back.

Stop posting bull****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you are quoting him from 2003 when he was talking about a dividend tax cut? Wow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ap3IZcasVMqA&refer=us

I was, as a source for why he thinks rebates are better than lowered dividend taxes (or corporate tax breaks, he later goes on to say). It was a point to his economic philosophy with regard to how to stimulate the economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was, as a source for why he thinks rebates are better than lowered dividend taxes (or corporate tax breaks, he later goes on to say). It was a point to his economic philosophy with regard to how to stimulate the economy

/bucaro reading my last post............3..............2..............1.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/bucaro reading my last post............3..............2..............1.............

His quote, or my point on his economic opinioin was not related to windfall taxes but to economic stimulus in general vs. tax breaks for corporations. No economist likes the idea of "windfall" taxes (nor do I for that matter) because it goes directly against the basic fundamentals of a free market economy. I do however, and look up Buffets opinions on this as well, have a problem with the tax breaks and billions in subsadies given to these companies. I would rather those holes in the tax code filled and stop with the subsadies and fund recovery package with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the hell are the reasonable candidates? Why can't we find someone who's going to be fiscally conservative without trying to make us a military/police state? Where's the candidate who'll let me do what the **** I want with my body and my life but won't try and save the whole ****ing world and protect me from my own stupidity with tax $?

He dropped out of the primaries because he didn't campaign right. :2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the economics, I AM an economist. Your last sentence is the key. People HAVE to pay for the gas. Its gone up 400% in the past 10 years, we still consume it at record levels. Exxon CAN just pass it on, just like they do the current taxes on the product.

The caveat is foreign companies that sell gasoline in the States likely wont be subject to a windfall profits tax. That will put Exxon at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. So the other consequence of Obama's plan is to handcuff an american company (that is mostly owned by individual american investors) in favor of foreign companies. So thats real smart.

My mistake. I forgot you were an economist.

I was just reacting to the "pass it on" language, because I have seen the idea misused so many times on here.

Like I said, I do not favor this particular proposal. I also don't think that it is that big a deal (and I own a ton of Exxon stock). :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People love to complain about how evil it is that the tyrannical oil companies are making record profits at a time when fuel is so expensive. But who owns the oil companies? The people do, as shareholders.

Obama is also in favor of raising the minimum wage. Does he realize that raising the minimum wage leads to more unemployment? Does he realize that the minimum wage law is what Milton Friedman called "the most anti-black law on the statute books?"

Let the market work. The early 1900s, the heyday of capitalism, was the greatest period of philanthropic activity in the history of the world. We need less government intervention, not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffet is 100% on board with this. Look it up, I guess you don't know Buffet as well as you think
Wow Buc. Maybe you should go get some fresh air for a minute.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/25/video-warren-buffett-knocks-obama-over-windfall-profit-tax-on-oil/

Video: Warren Buffett knocks Obama over windfall profits tax on oil

posted at 5:37 pm on June 25, 2008

by Allahpundit

Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Liberal, Obama supporter, capitalist. To paraphrase the Messiah’s own famous line about war, Buffett’s not against all taxes, he’s just against dumb taxes, like ones leveled according to some arbitrary definition of what constitutes a “windfall.” Consider this Obama’s answer to McCain’s gas tax holiday: Foolish economically, but too politically appealing to pass up. At last check, the Straight Talk Express had taken a welcome detour from this position. I wonder if gas prices creep much higher this summer whether he won’t detour back.

His quote, or my point on his economic opinioin was not related to windfall taxes but to economic stimulus in general vs. tax breaks for corporations. No economist likes the idea of "windfall" taxes (nor do I for that matter) because it goes directly against the basic fundamentals of a free market economy. I do however, and look up Buffets opinions on this as well, have a problem with the tax breaks and billions in subsadies given to these companies. I would rather those holes in the tax code filled and stop with the subsadies and fund recovery package with that.

You said he is 100% on board. I just posted a VIDEO where it shows the man calling the proposal dumb. Then YOU pointed to something completely unrelated that happened 5 years ago. There is a BIG BIG difference between a tax on dividend income (which is by and large a tax on the rich) and a windfall profits tax (which would mostly fall evenly across income levels).

Your point makes no sense on this topic and everything else is totally off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. I forgot you were an economist.

I was just reacting to the "pass it on" language, because I have seen the idea misused so many times on here.

Like I said, I do not favor this particular proposal. I also don't think that it is that big a deal (and I own a ton of Exxon stock). :whoknows:

Roger. I think it just show's Obama's weakness in the area, which is the area I base my vote almost entirely upon. One the other hand, McCain has openly said that he's weak in that area too. Both have offered up retarded ideas like this that way too many people will fall for hook line and sinker.

One calls himself the "Change" candidate, the other the "straight-talk express."

Both are full of ****.

And i think it sucks.

(whats funny is watching people argue over who is MORE full of ****.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is also in favor of raising the minimum wage. Does he realize that raising the minimum wage leads to more unemployment? Does he realize that the minimum wage law is what Milton Friedman called "the most anti-black law on the statute books?"

Milton Friedman wrote that over four decades ago, when things were a bit different in this country. Nearly all of the hysterical arguments against the minimum wage have been proven false over time. It is true that a super-high minimum wage would be disaster - but that is not what we have or want.

Let the market work. The early 1900s, the heyday of capitalism, was the greatest period of philanthropic activity in the history of the world. We need less government intervention, not more.

Err, ok. I myslef do not want a return to a world of one very rich person and 250 starving sweatshop laborers, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had read that Buffett was on board with additional rebates but had not read of his opinion regarding where the rebate cash would come from. Poor assumption on my part

Just for future reference, thats why people always post links to info like that on ES.

:cheers:

Ok folks, have a good weekend. Ive got a 12 day vacation to attend to. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...