In response to:

Obama, Democrats Favor Worst of Bad Ideas

Bruceybaby Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 2:57 AM
You are so full of it, Beauprez. Funny how your ideas always end up protecting the incomes of the wealthy. As if they would stop investing because the tax on the profits would be slightly higher - what malarkey!
binc Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 7:43 AM
Investing always involves risk so of course investors will weigh the risks against the hoped for outcomes when they choose to invest (gamble). If their winnings are to be further chipped away by taxes, they just may not choose to invest(gamble). What I find ironic is the fact that many little libbies have their retirement funds invested in the markets that they so love to hate. When said retirement accounts plummet, they will deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
Bruceybaby Wrote: Dec 31, 2012 11:50 AM
Income tax rates were much, much higher in the and 1960's as Warren Buffet pointed out. It didn't hurt a thing - and the government didn't have these huge deficits partly caused by the low-tax loonies. Beauprez is reporting Hodge's numbers as fact (for every $1 of new revenue to the government, GDP would shrink by $2.77.) The precision of the numbers indicates somebody is spewing factoids.

As Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress finalize plans for whom to increase tax rates on and by how much – all in the name of preventing the nation from going over the "fiscal cliff," of course – the following may being of interest to readers of this page, if not to the politicians.

Earlier this month, Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation, published a ranking of fifteen ideas to create "new revenues as a component of any bipartisan deal to reduce the federal deficit."  Hodge utilized findings of extensive studies by OECD economists...