<p>"WELCOME TO OBAMA-NOMICS 101. If you’re wondering how the young candidate would impact Wall Street if he wins the presidential marathon in November, here’s the bottom line: He would hike most rates on dividends and capital gains from their current top of 15% to between 24% and 25% in order to generate new revenue and pay for middle-class tax simplification. So says Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor who advises Obama on economic matters.</p>
<p>“That’s less than the 28% rate under Ronald Reagan, and more than the 20% rate under Bill Clinton,” Goolsbee told us last week. And raging bull markets occurred during both their presidencies."</p>
<p>“TO INSURE AGAINST A NEGATIVE impact on innovation and new business formation, Obama would have a zero rate on capital gains for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and small-business owners forming new enterprises.”</p>
<p>Hmmm. I wonder how this would play out.</p>
<p>"As for ordinary income, Obama would allow the top marginal rates to return to the Clinton era’s 39.6% versus 35% today. Obama would also eliminate all tax shelters and loopholes, Goolsbee says.</p>
<p>For moderate wage earners who take the standard deductions, tax filing would be simplified. The Internal Revenue Service would figure out their taxes for them and send them a one-page form to sign, reducing preparation costs."</p>
<p>“Goolsbee’s written extensively on the effects tax rates have on the behavior of the wealthy. He believes that the negative effects of raising taxes on the very rich have been exaggerated.”</p>
<p>"WELCOME TO OBAMA-NOMICS 101. If you’re wondering how the young candidate would impact Wall Street if he wins the presidential marathon in November, here’s the bottom line: He would hike most rates on dividends and capital gains from their current top of 15% to between 24% and 25% in order to generate new revenue and pay for middle-class tax simplification. So says Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor who advises Obama on economic matters.</p>
<p>“That’s less than the 28% rate under Ronald Reagan, and more than the 20% rate under Bill Clinton,” Goolsbee told us last week. And raging bull markets occurred during both their presidencies."</p>
<p>“TO INSURE AGAINST A NEGATIVE impact on innovation and new business formation, Obama would have a zero rate on capital gains for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and small-business owners forming new enterprises.”</p>
<p>Ok. This is my thinking. This is what happens when academics get involved in the real world. </p>
<p>I see assets flowing from existing entities to new entities. These assets will be undervalued avoiding capital gains taxes. These undervalued assets will end up in new entities where they will now be valued correctly and where they will never be taxed because capital gains taxes don’t exist for these new enterprises.</p>
<p>Yup. Might as well just fork it over to the evil we know, rather than the evil we don’t. ;)</p>
<p>(Did you like my plan to give $120 billion a year to health insurers for five years to do nothing? Maybe they could also reconstitute themselves as NEW “do nothing” companies. Let me know when the IPO hits. :))</p>
<p>The trouble with the good professor’s analysis is that capital gains taxes have been coming down world-wide since Regan and Clinton; US investment taxes don’t work in an vacuum. A higher investment tax (meaning less net investment income) in the US will pound the dollar as investors find investments elsewhere.</p>
<p>Of course gapital gains tax reciepts soared everytime the rates were dropped and companies also increased dividends when those rates were lowered . So will loopholes such as mortgage interest deductions be eliminated? How about reinstating capital gains on homes too. Aren’t those special interest groups? And getting rid of the child and college credits. All shelters? Sure.
We could get of of oil by adding about a $3 per gallon sliding tax that increased as crude prices dropped in order to keep gas prices high. Then offset that with a reduction in income tax rates. Of course we could cut back on driving and live in smaller homes but of course that means individuals would have to take responsibilty for cutting back on oil and gas. Not something americans want to do. They relayy do want big oil but they want low proces too.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind, OB just like Bush, has to get the other two parts of government to go along with him. He can have all the plans he wants, Bush did too, not everything makes it to us, which is a good thing no matter who is in office. </p>
<p>I’m not particulary keen on the IRS figuring out my bill to “save time” and sending it to me. I’m sure every accountant isn’t really thrilled to hear that either… I don’t see that as too possible to actually get onto the street. I mean do we trust the IRS to get it right?</p>
<p>One man’s tax shelter is another state’s major employer and livelihood. Good luck with that one O. Even the Bigger O (Oprah) could not sell that one in Congress. The only think that might pass are the higher tax rates on the hard working higher achievers.</p>
Actually, I think most Americans would be happier with some kind of green alternative to oil if it cost the same or even a bit more. If it cost less, that would be even better. And wouldn’t it be way cooler to have all the loopholes sliding in a direction that rewards innovation and enterprise?</p>
<p>Why do you think oil is so popular around the world? It is the most efficient source of energy we have short of nuclear. Most of the rest take more energy to produce than they yield. You are looking for alchemy.</p>
<p>Yes, barrons. It is. Right now. My point is that there has got to be an alternative to oil that is cleaner and potentially less expensive and that frees other countries from imports. I’m sure it exists; we just haven’t discovered it yet. I’ve seen a lot of innovation in my lifetime and I’m sure that there will be inventions (even energy-related ones) that will surprise in the years to come. </p>
<p>I’m referring to future enterprise and innovation not what is available to us now and in the past. I hope in my lifetime to see our dependence on oil diminish to zero. It’s dirty and in short supply and leads us on dangerous foreign endeavors when we could be focusing on more important things like ending poverty in the world.</p>
<p>Oil has probably done more to end poverty in the world than most other products. That’s why people also fight over it so much. Unfortunately many of the places that have it are so corrupt and backward the benefits only go to a relative few.</p>
<p>Well, that’s good to hear because when we get our new green fuel it will probably spur the economy even more. More people in developing countries will be able to afford transportation, leading to greater development (yet still clean). Sounds good to me and I look forward to it. Sorry the oil barrons (not you, obviously ) will have to lose money, but hopefully they will have invested well or will jump on board the new green economy that comes.</p>
<p>sugar cane ethanol is much more powerful (based on BTUs) than corn ethanol (as Brazil well knows), but, then ‘First-in-the-Nation’ Iowa doesn’t grow cane. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The tax plan is necessary. Our country is in so much debt right now, we have to generate more revenue to keep it afloat and right the economy. Yes, if you make more money, you’ll end up paying a bit more. Trust me when I say that you will end up paying MUCH more if the economy keeps going downhill. How much have you all lost already in property depreciation alone? No matter who gets elected, taxes will be hiked. There’s no choice. As has been said, I’d rather go with the honest candidate who articulates a plan, as opposed to those who disseminate during the election and then come up with a tax hike later behind closed doors.</p>
<p>Energy alternatives are coming, whether you like it or not. I would think that it’s evident that green alternatives are in our nation’s best interests. To be honest, it’s research that should have been funded after the back during the 70s gas crisis. Judging by the popularity of fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles in the last few years, people are ready to jump on board.</p>
<p>I’m in favor of treadmills myself. Maybe some Republican can figure out a way to harness the unemployed to them, or maybe require that office workers do their usual stuff while doing their share.</p>
<p>Then all we need is a ready supply of Chiclets.</p>
<h1>15. No wonder Brazilians have more fun than us corny americans. Their ethanol got more kick.</h1>
<p>(I think you mean that there are less energy inputs into cane based ethanol than ethanol derived from starches. There is an advantage in starch in that starch can be held as a reserve and later used as either for food production or energy production. Both fuel sources are still inefficient when compared to traditional energy sources.)</p>
) will have to lose money, but hopefully they will have invested well or will jump on board the new green economy that comes.</p>