Obama wants to raise business taxes. (You should know that those increased business taxes are, of course, paid by all--100%--of Americans.) He wants to increase social security taxes, capital gains taxes, and the estate tax.  And he wants the marginal rate to go to nearly 40%. Obama is really planning an income re-distribution scheme on a scale never attempted in this country before. It is more a European model than an American model.  With Pelosi in charge of Congress, he would be able to make it happen.

Eos:

"Obama wants to raise business taxes...With Pelosi in charge of Congress, he would be able to make it happen."

So? What's your point?

Ms Paliln invoked the name of Harry S. Truman, a wicked, vulgar association compared

to herself.  Note:  Harry became president.  Is there a huge risk here?  You betcha.

I am tired of the argument that we can't tax businesses, because they'll just pass the costs on to the consumer. We can extend that argument to all wealthy individuals, because after all, if we tax them more, why, this must mean that they'll be able to hire fewer contractors and therapists, and buy fewer cars. And we can't tax middle class folks because, well, the same thing. I guess we should just tax the poor, because after all, when we stick it to the poor, no one else suffers besides them.

Eos, maybe jaunty and Wandrey were right about you.

Perhaps you meant to say an income re-distribution scheme on a scale not seen since Bush's tax cuts redistributed income upward. That would have been more accurate.

Besides, if business taxes are paid 100% by Americans, then what does business care about their tax rates? Because business taxes are not all passed on to the consumer. But of course someone eventually pays all taxes. And you know what, someone also eventually pays debts, and I promise you that 100% of the record debt that Bush has racked up (and which McCain promises to double-down on) will be paid by Americans.

Eos = McCain plant.  Please ignore him or her.

Jeff Frey = winner.

Eos, better luck next time bud. Have you tried Malkin's blog?

Eos, please go to barackobama.com and read the section on issues.

A)  As the recent report stated, most multinational, multibilion dollar corporations pay ZERO taxes now.  It might behoove them to start paying something, anything in the way of taxes.  They will raise prices anyway as long as the market will allow them to continue raking in profits.

B)  Obama will not be RAISING Social Security taxes, only EXTENDING them for persons who make over the current cut off point which is over $100,000+ in annual income per person.  This is only fair, since the majority of Americans don't make anything near $100,000+ annual salary.

C)  Not on all capital gains taxes, some will be exempt or stay at the same rate.

D) Pailin's reference to her sister and brother-in-law's service station being hit by Obama's raise in business taxes was a complete lie, since his plan calls for lowering taxes on small businesses and giving them incentives to grow their businesses.  This, of course, assumes that her family doesn't own a huge string of service stations, which we wouldn't know, of course, since she did not mention anyone in her family, extended or immediate, who ever struggled to make ends meet.  This was touted as something she would say, since supposedly she and Todd, The First Dude, were the type of people who would sit around the kitchen table trying to figure out how to pay the bills with supposed shrinkng wages, which is not true in their case, since when she was elected governor, he quit his job to raise the kids for only the first year, until he got bored and went back to work, leaving the raising of her children to her extended family and especially her mother who she is quoted as say "My mom will do anything I want her to do".  The campaign promise of Todd raising the family was a big Oops on her part, since when he decided to go back to work and she was asked about how she campaigned for governor with the pledge that he would stay at home and now was not, her answer "Well, it seems I forgot to discuss this issue with him before I said that."

This Hockey Mom Beauty Queen will have much to correct in the coming days and weeks once these stories move from the Anchorage Daily News pages onto the mainstream media.  That is if she is ever allowed to be interviewed by the media.

Regarding taxes, let's keep perspective; taxes under Obama would be lower than under Clinton, and as I remember it the American economy was far from "crippled" at that time.  Plus, as someone else pointed out, there will be tax cuts for 95% of Americans.

I haven't watched the speech, but from what I gather it was simply an extension of the campaign's new focus on rallying the conservative base. This is an interesting strategy because there is no apparent effort to avoid damaging their standing with the independents and swing voters. It remains to be seen if this loss will be significant and if the energized base will compensate.

It doesn't help that they're leaving themselves open to attacks as soon as the convention is over; Obama may not be making a spectacle, but I can't help but think he's taking notes on everything, and preparing to bring up some issues starting Friday.

From the Plank: Disrespectful, Angry, and Effective , by Franklin Foer Why So Down on the Community?

I doubt either side will gain much out of its tax policy. Few Americans are really overtaxed anymore, with the exception of marriage penalty sufferers, and most of Obama's tax credits are chump change when compared to, say, the impact of lower interest rates. A 50 bp cut in mortgage rates puts more cash in the pocket of your typical middle income homeowner than a $2000 reduction in his tax bill.

Eos: taxes are levied on profits not on revenues; the more corporations try to pass tax increases onto consumers, they more they will raise their profit margins, and the more they will be taxed.  Please, if you mean to make an observation about tax policy, learn about taxes first.

Empirically, the corporate tax cuts of the eighties did not result in price cuts for the consumer, but just more cash for the companies, more corporate raids, more financial institution windfall gains, more bubbles ... the effect of taxes on companies may be found in investment patterns, but has nothing whatever to do with consumers of their goods or services.