"Taxes must increase"? That would be good news, if our take-home pay grows, too.

I get the feeling it's unanimous: taxes will have to increase, whether the next president is Obama or McCain.  Obama's team thinks it's because the government is not yet transferring enough money from oil companies and "the rich" to ethanol agribusinesses and the non-rich; i.e., that oil company tax rates are not yet high enough, income tax rates are not yet progressive enough, and social security contributions should be de-linked from subsequent social security benefits.  McCain's team includes the Concord Coalition's deficit fear-peddlers, who think the only permissible deficits are the ones it takes to win wars after they start (as opposed to preventing them before they start).  Presumably, they have his ear. 

Why aren't we hearing more from the candidates about how their proposed policies would help to grow the economy, and therefore the average worker's take-home pay -- as well as the government's tax receipts?  Why doesn't Obama take the muzzle off Austin Goolsby?  Why doesn't McCain fire the Concord Coalition from his team, and get them out of Jack Kemp's way? 

These are just a few things I don't understand about the campaigns and their rhetoric machines. 

But, just in case one side or the other is listening, here's a paycheck brain teaser, showing two ways the government could "increase taxes" on us.  Study the two future scenarios, then decide which one you like better.  (Note that GM is not writing the last check; that's a hint that "growth" means "creative-destruction.") 

Then ask the candidates why they aren't giving economic growth the attention it deserves. (Wild guess: pandering to holders of today's jobs is probably a big part of the reason; identifying the holders of tomorrow's jobs is too hard.)

Comments

[wonderputz]

Well, it makes sense, if you add up what Obama and McCain believe about policy. They're both in support of some kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants, but illegal immigrants are not qualified for these better new jobs. Considering an amnesty policy will increase the number of illegal immigrants disqualified from good jobs, then someone is going to have to foot the higher bill for their health care and their children's education. Welcome to ObaMcCain's all-American ATM (the taxpayers).

[Bret]

"Wild guess: pandering to holders of today's jobs is probably a big part of the reason; identifying the holders of tomorrow's jobs is too hard."

I suppose. But why aren't the politicians interested in pandering to parents about their children's future (since our children are the holders of tomorrow's jobs)? I know very few parents who wouldn't be willing to risk a bit of a pullback in the standard of living if they thought it beneficial for their children's future.

[Steve C]

A comparison of both candidates' tax policies:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

[Joe C.]

B. Hussein is not concerned with growing the economy, he is concerned with power and getting as many free riders as possible to vote for him and increase their dependency. McCain is concerned with growing the economy, but is clueless on how that happens so he finds some "experts" who are similarly clueless but "moderate" (redundant, I know). B. Hussein is an economic terrorist fellow traveler (anti-capitalists, ecofascists, Luddites, and other ultraleftists), and McCain is an economic terrorist appeaser.

My preference is a consumption tax system, but if we insist on this income-based system, short of a flat tax, I would mandate a minimum tax on the bottom 50% by a reverse sliding scale based on the welfare services they consume. The tax could be paid by public service, decreased benefit, or progressing in economic status improvements. This would give them a stake in their policy preferences.

[Jim Glass]

Taxes going up or not, it's great to see your site back in business again.