IT'S OFFICIAL, BARACK OBAMA WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!

[Diofan]

Obama's transition website

One thing proposed in here which I have long stated is EXTREMELY STUPID is the Windfall Profit Tax. Obama still plans to carry this out!

The results:
Raising the price of gas back up, affecting the price of goods and services, nullifying the effect of the rebate.

Charging said taxes to corporations and those over a specific income level, affecting the price of goods and services, nullifying the effect of the rebate.

Folks...if a company is taxed on profit, they pass that tax on to the consumer in the form of higher prices!

Windfall Profit Tax = EXTREMELY STUPID IDEA!!!!

Gas prices go back up to astronomical levels, You Democrats will have NOBODY to blame but yourselves if this passes!

You think the economy is bad now! Wait till this goes through!!!! It's going to have a spiral effect! Oil Companies and corporations taxed by this will pass it on to YOU in the form of higher prices...MARK MY WORDS!!!! THIS IS A DANGEROUSLY STUPID IDEA!!!!

Case and point: When fuel prices were topping out at $4.00 a gallon, companies tacked on a fuel surcharge to cover the huge expense! I know this because I sign invoices dozens of times at work and I see it all the time!

[Jazzmyn]

I for one was celebrating on election night. I enjoyed seeing the results of this election and look forward to seeing the changes to come. Anything has to be better after 8 years of Bush in office in my opinion.

[Frong]

Oh, I don't think Bush is personally a bad guy at all. He almost always seems friendly and knows how to crack a decent joke. The problem is that unless you're also a smooth public speaker, the general populace tends to look at you like an idiot. Consider Reagan: he was also a nice guy with a sense of humor, but because he was such a good speaker, it was far harder to try and ridicule him. Bush pretty much set himself up for ridicule just by opening his mouth half the time.

As for Obama possibly mending relations in general with the international community, I guarantee that will happen to some degree. There were already people celebrating in the streets in various countries right after he got elected. How long this goodwill will last, I don't know. At the very least, though, the opportunity to make some considerable progress is most certainly there.

I think the issue that I wonder about the most in terms of Obama and European relations is what he'll do with Russia. Medvedev goes and congratulates him on his victory, almost exactly the same time as Russia announces they're putting missles near the Polish border, obviously just to spite the US for putting a missile defense system there first. I'm not quite sure how Obama is supposed to try and defuse this ridiculous Cold War mentality that Putin's Russia is currently exercising with continually increasing frequency and magnitude, but I hope he has the good sense to keep his options open. If a diplomatic solution can be found, then great, but I'm highly, HIGHLY skeptical that there is one. Russia has never really been our friend, and Putin's blatant hegemonic ambitions are only making things worse. I wouldn't say we should ever have to resort to military measures (unless they go and invade Ukraine next or something ), but economic and political measures can certainly be taken that haven't been done so already. It remains to be seen if Obama has the conviction to do so, or if he'll just stick to trying to force the toothless UN to do something, instead.

And yes, windfall profits tax on oil companies = stupid idea. It'll almost definitely happen, though. One of the fundamental economic principles that Obama appears to have been ignoring this whole time is that if you tax businesses to death, they'll simply either raise costs to cover their higher taxes or else take their business elsewhere entirely. Either way is bad for the consumer, but he either doesn't get that or doesn't care. Maybe when government revenue drops, he'll figure it out.

I for one was celebrating on election night. I enjoyed seeing the results of this election and look forward to seeing the changes to come. Anything has to be better after 8 years of Bush in office in my opinion.

Well, my taxes didn't go up and we didn't get attacked again while Bush was in office. Seems to have worked out pretty well for me.

[Masamune]

It seems whenever a Democrat is elected, the world gets a little braver with its weapons muscles. Also, our military gets really crappy cut backs. >.>

Perhaps we should send Barney to Poland to talk this over with them.

[Nakor]

It seems whenever a Democrat is elected, the world gets a little braver with its weapons muscles. Also, our military gets really crappy cut backs. >.>

Perhaps we should send Barney to Poland to talk this over with them.

I dunno, it's not like the world didn't decide to test Bush when he got in. It wasn't only Afghanistan, there was the whole China deal too. It got all but forgotten though after 9/11. Heck, I can't even remember what exactly that was all about....

[Frong]

9/11? That was an attack that was being plotted long before Bush was ever in office. The fact that Al Qaeda was bold enough and even capable at all of staging an attack like that was due to the fact that Clinton did the typical Democrat thing for eight years and grossly ignored national security and underfunded the military (he was too busy shaking hands with everyone's favorite original terrorist, Arafat ). Bush came in and had to deal with the results, then beefed up both of those aspects and prevented us from being attacked again. I guarantee you Al Qaeda would have, had we given them the chance, but they never got that far. A lot of people seem to forget that when they ridicule Bush on the whole.

Now we face the prospect of Obama doing the same thing as Clinton and taking money from the military to try and fund his massive spending plans, only with the global situation even less stable than it was when Clinton did it (and a Democratic majority in Congress that will only make it easier for him to do so). Not something I'm terribly happy about, quite frankly. National security was a serious focal point in this year's campaign until the stupid economy collapsed and basically turned the election into a one-issue contest, something that particularly annoys me, because all the economic success in the world doesn't mean squat if you have people trying to blow you up.

[Nakor]

Yeah, I'm not talking about 9/11 itself though, but rather whatever mess it was with China that was going on before that. That was the test of Bush I'm referring to. For the life of me I can't remember what the crap it was, though. >_<

[wavemeister]

And yes, windfall profits tax on oil companies = stupid idea. It'll almost definitely happen, though. One of the fundamental economic principles that Obama appears to have been ignoring this whole time is that if you tax businesses to death, they'll simply either raise costs to cover their higher taxes or else take their business elsewhere entirely. Either way is bad for the consumer, but he either doesn't get that or doesn't care. Maybe when government revenue drops, he'll figure it out.

Taxing businesses = bad idea.
Taxing the wealthy = bad idea.

So...who should be taxed?

Germany took a leaf out of the books of Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s and has continually reduced the taxes for the biggies among business and wealth since then. Result: almost everything is going down since then for the majority of the citizen. For nearly two decades now, the real income of the lower and recently the middle up to above average income groups too is decreasing, while the top of the crop celebrated income increases up in the three-digit percentage area.

Well, they can send their kiddies to private schools. For the lesser fortunate rest, there are schools in which the windows has to be nailed shut to prevent falling out of the rotten frames while the pupils are sitting full contact shoulder to shoulder in classes with an average of 30-32 kids, being taught by teachers on the brink of going overage and/or postal - if there are enough teachers, that is.
Remember? No taxes, no teachers. And schools looking like buildings in the projects.

A phenomenon almost believed to be extincted in the 90s is currently celebrating a revival: car stereo and navigation system thefts. Yeah, this is primarily related to the opening of the borders to the east due to the Schengen agreement. But if there were more police patrolling the streets, maybe the numbers of crimes wouldn't hat shot up like this. Currently, our local police station had to postpone a bicycle coding action (to prevent theft...) two times due to personnel shortages. And in other states, the police doesn't even have enough money to run their patrol cars in an adequate way.
Remember? No taxes, not enough cops. And not enough fuel. Dammit, maybe I should take a visit to the Czech to get myself a few guns, just in case I have to defend my properties again and want to survive it with minor injuries until the cops are coming or not.

But our taxes (our = not belonging to the 10% who had continually increased their wealth since the 80s) are continually going up. VAT, eco tax, health insurance - up, up up. Yeah, it's a very bad idea to demand the fair share of taxes from those who are paying almost nothing in comparision, like they had broken their promise to create more and adequately paid jobs since then.
My suggestion: free them from all taxes. One day, it will happen anyway as they are already in control of politics, so we can do it today as well.

[Frong]

I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes than the poor - they absolutely should, as they already do now. I'm saying that NOBODY should pay ridiculously high taxes, and that the government should cut its spending accordingly. I am not and have never been a proponent of big government, as it is supremely inefficient and wasteful by nature. Obama wants to spend a ton and put the tax burden for it almost entirely upon the rich, whereas McCain wanted to keep EVERYBODY'S taxes low and cut spending instead. Fundamental difference in economic philosophies. I happen to agree with the latter, but the former got elected. Now we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

As for lowering taxes on big businesses and the rich, those are the groups that drive the economy. The ones with all the money are the ones that spend the most of it, and nothing occurs unless somebody is buying something. If the plight of the average citizen has gotten worse during a period where taxes were lowered on corporations and the rich, it's not going to be specifically because their taxes were low. Besides, it's a proven fact that when taxes are lowered on businesses, government revenue goes UP, due to the increase in taxable business income and investment. Maybe you should look to crappy government spending policies for answers instead. No doubt there's plenty of crap there to be found.

Also, I think a good chunk of the things you mentioned, like schools and police forces, are more related to state taxes than federal taxes, wave. The states still have the authority to do what they want with their tax levels, regardless of what the federal government is doing.

[TWEETER]

I still can't believe the guy I voted for won. That didn't happen last time!

[Frong]

What, you actually expected Kerry to win? The guy exhibited no personality or spine during his campaign at all. Even against Dubya, he was doomed from the start.

[TWEETER]

Well, NO, not really. I didn't even like Kerry but I wanted Bush out so bad...

[wavemeister]

I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes than the poor - they absolutely should, as they already do now. I'm saying that NOBODY should pay ridiculously high taxes, and that the government should cut its spending accordingly. I am not and have never been a proponent of big government, as it is supremely inefficient and wasteful by nature. Obama wants to spend a ton and put the tax burden for it almost entirely upon the rich, whereas McCain wanted to keep EVERYBODY'S taxes low and cut spending instead. Fundamental difference in economic philosophies. I happen to agree with the latter, but the former got elected. Now we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

As for lowering taxes on big businesses and the rich, those are the groups that drive the economy.

An often spreaded misapprehension.

The ones with all the money are the ones that spend the most of it, and nothing occurs unless somebody is buying something.

Because if this thesis would prove true, either the rich wouldn't be that rich anymore after a certain time, or we all would be either rich or poor...

It's a fact that the rich are not the biggest factor in driving an economy by spending their money (simply because they don't; see above). Mr Gates, to name just one example, would be pretty much nonplussed and a few million $ poorer with certainty if it wasn't all the Joe Averages around the world buying the Windows OS. There are only few companies which can exist by catering almost exclusively to the rich - and even them need the Joes of this world to produce their goods.

A little basic math:

Dick Rich, annual income after taxes: $ 124,800
Joe Average, annual income after taxes: $ 30,830

Who's the richer one? Who's got more money left after covering the basic needs? And how many of the population are Dick Richs, and how many Joe Averages?

Okay, I have to admit - my calculations (based on the situation in Germany) featured an unfairness: Joe Average had to pay the full 18% of income tax for lack of deductibles, while Dick Rich paid actually only 22% instead of the intended max of 45% according to the Oberfinanzdirektion Baden-Württemberg for incomes exceeeding € 125,000 per anno (please note that Mr Rich would still have a higher income even if he had to pay a 45% income tax).

So, all that yabba-yabba about low taxes for all is nothing else but taxing the poorer and middle class people unproportionally higher than the rich. But still, the mightiest persons of the world seems to flinch whenever they only think about bad news for the minority of their citizens (and voters).
The good question is why. Because I still haven't found the respective passage in the constitution which says "The gouvernment has the duty to kiss the asses of the rich minority even if the whole country is going into a tailspin because of that".

But if you like to pay a little bit more on the gas pump to support the ailing rich...your choice. They can afford it.

[Frong]

I wasn't saying that the rich are the primary driving factor in the economy SOLELY because of spending their money directly on consumer goods. Obviously, the more people there are in a given income group, the larger the capacity to buy goods. Rather, the rich are the ones who put the most money into investment and business capital, and without that, Joe Average wouldn't have a job half the time. For that matter, Joe Average wouldn't have his Windows OS at all if Mr. Gates hadn't first put in the time and personal effort, and then later the money for hiring people and buying equipment, to develop them. The same thing goes for anything else produced by a large corporation, which is most of the products you buy on a daily basis. Yes, I know that small businesses employ a ton of people, but small businesses get a lot of their supplies and whatnot from large businesses, so it ends up involving the rich either way. Also, that investment is the reason why the rich get richer, rather than poorer, in spite of the fact that they do spend more per person. Smartly invested money, either into things like the stock market or into human or physical capital, nearly always pays itself back, plus profit. Nobody would ever invest in anything if it didn't.

The one other reason I can no longer bring myself to hate the rich as a whole (and therefore not feel any qualms about taxing them really hard) is that I'm certain that the vast majority of them are rich because they work like dogs. I don't mean the überrich, I mean the ones who make in the low six figures, as is more common. How would you like it if you went through over half a decade of school to get an advanced degree, as many of them do, and put in countless hours of work to get to your current position and make it work (mid-level managers, medical specialists, small business owners, etc. likely have ungodly long workdays), only to have the government take a disproportionately high percentage of your income as punishment for your success? I can tell you I wouldn't be thrilled.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about. My grandpa is pretty rich. Why? He worked his fool arse off for decades to make the family propane business the best in the area (which included going out in the freezing cold in the middle of the night to make deliveries, since that was his level of customer service), as well as invested wisely in real estate. I'm pretty sure my cousin Rick is fairly rich, too. His reason? He went through medical school and worked his way up to being the head of the ER at the Ohio State University Medical Center, which is a huge facility. His work hours, due to being an ER doctor, are nuts, and he's always running off to conferences halfway across the country, too. I know I certainly wouldn't be able to put up with it. So here are two people who are rich because they EARNED it. Why should they be content to sit back and let the government take a huge chunk of their assets without knowing that it'll really be put to good use (knowing governments, it probably won't)? My grandpa already gives a ton of money to charity every year because it's the right thing to do (no idea about my cousin, never asked). Unlike what Obama suggested, the rich paying way, way higher taxes because they can afford it is not neighborly. Being neighborly is not mandatory.

[wavemeister]

The one other reason I can no longer bring myself to hate the rich as a whole (and therefore not feel any qualms about taxing them really hard) is that I'm certain that the vast majority of them are rich because they work like dogs. I don't mean the überrich, I mean the ones who make in the low six figures, as is more common. How would you like it if you went through over half a decade of school to get an advanced degree, as many of them do, and put in countless hours of work to get to your current position and make it work (mid-level managers, medical specialists, small business owners, etc. likely have ungodly long workdays), only to have the government take a disproportionately high percentage of your income as punishment for your success? I can tell you I wouldn't be thrilled.

Whenever I read lines like these, I'm asking myself: "what are the employees doing - sitting on the chairs and enjoying cocktails all day long?".
Well, my back still hurts from yesterday, and believe me that it doesn't came from relaxing in a comfy chair sipping on a Vodka Lemon.

There are major flaws in your point of views about taxes and working if I'm allowed to call it like this: taxes are no punishment. They are vital to keep a community running. I'm sure that the groups you've mentioned would be also unhappy if there were no services like the police or firefighters to protect their hard earned (and well deserved - there's no envy here) properties, no adequate kindergartens and schools to educate their children, no well built and maintained roads to take out their goods or just their luxury limousines for a vacation.
But although even the überrich are also profiting on such community services, they still wail about "unfair" taxation. They do also wail about poorly educated people unfit to work, bad roads, crime rates going up...I really don't know what's ailing these people.
I'm with you regarding that on all levels of gouvernment, there's a lot of wasting money which could've been better spent on things which do matter and are needed more. But people do have a tendency to lament about this - and vote the same wasters again and again...

The second flaw...what and/or who's being forcing them to work "ungodly long"? One might easy say "the competition", but if that's really the truth, they must die like flies since 24 hours wouldn't be enough then. Weren't they taught to use the "mini-max principle" (minimum input - maximum profit)? And I'm not speaking of people doing their business in crafts like plumbing, keysmiths and stuff.
All I know for example is that my bosses are doing overtimes only when it's absolutely necessary. And still, their business is quite successful. Another reason for their success is that they are paying only minimum wages (and then they wonder about the high turnover rate of the staff...), but that's another story.
What's baffling me more is that some of those "overclockers" do have enough time to spread their opinions about "too high taxes", "no welfare for no one (but us, of course)" and stuff in political forums all day (and night) long. Wow...also, I don't have the time to be online while doing my business, but maybe it has something to do with the limited availabilty of online access behind the machines.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about. My grandpa is pretty rich. Why? He worked his fool arse off for decades to make the family propane business the best in the area (which included going out in the freezing cold in the middle of the night to make deliveries, since that was his level of customer service), as well as invested wisely in real estate. I'm pretty sure my cousin Rick is fairly rich, too. His reason? He went through medical school and worked his way up to being the head of the ER at the Ohio State University Medical Center, which is a huge facility. His work hours, due to being an ER doctor, are nuts, and he's always running off to conferences halfway across the country, too. I know I certainly wouldn't be able to put up with it. So here are two people who are rich because they EARNED it. Why should they be content to sit back and let the government take a huge chunk of their assets without knowing that it'll really be put to good use (knowing governments, it probably won't)? My grandpa already gives a ton of money to charity every year because it's the right thing to do (no idea about my cousin, never asked). Unlike what Obama suggested, the rich paying way, way higher taxes because they can afford it is not neighborly. Being neighborly is not mandatory.

And they still are well off, or did the taxation converted them into church mices?

There is a major difference, and it's easy math: Take 50% off an income of $100,000 p.a., and that person got still more (at basically same expenses) than the one being taxed with 10% off an income of $20,000 p.a. And both earned their incomes, in different ways.
This has nothing to do with the often spreaded "envy of the poor", but with the basic principle of "the strong supporting the weak" which had made most industrial cultures of today being that successful. Okay, we could go back to "survival of the strongest" like in the 19th and the beginnings of the 20th century, but would you really like to live in a place like that (if you could live/being still alive, that is)?

Oh, before I forget: A shroud has no pockets. So I really do wonder why building up some ungodly wealth during lifetime.