Obama's Tax Policies

[i] R.O.I.
By BRETT ARENDS

How an Obama Win Would Affect Your Pocketbook
June 6, 2008 10:22 a.m.

Well, we finally have a Democratic nominee.

Yes, a lot of water still has to flow under the bridge. The only thing we know for certain right now is that a new president and a new Congress will be sworn in next January.

But as Barack Obama is the man of the hour, it’s a reasonable time to ask what his election might mean for you and your family’s money.

This is not a political column, and in this space I take no stance about who should or shouldn’t win. I am only concerned with what you should do to prepare for contingencies. Over the coming months I expect to write a lot about what the elections might mean for your personal finances.

It’s a tricky task, because neither party or presidential candidate has any interest in being too specific about their taxing or spending plans. And of course a lot will happen in the economy, as well as politics, before anything changes on the statute books.

Nonetheless, if Senator Obama wins in November and he has strong majorities in Congress as well, there are three moves that might be worth thinking about to improve your own financial position under the next administration.

Cash in any big capital gains on stocks or mutual funds before the end of this year.

Make big changes to what you hold in your IRA and other tax-deferred accounts.

And, perhaps, move some of your other investments into tax shelters, like low-cost variable annuities.

Why?

The Bush tax cuts, which came into effect in 2003, are already set to expire in 2011. And politics, as well as the huge budget deficit, make it likely they will do so. That will probably mean big changes to the tax rates on capital gains and stock dividend income, among others. Senator Barack Obama has already acknowledged that he may be willing to raise the top rate on long-term capital gains still further, to 28%. That was the rate in 1997. Today it’s just 15%.

So if you are sitting on a huge profit in, say, your Apple stock, if the Democrats win in November you might want to cash it in before the end of the year. “Go ahead and sell it” says Benjamin Tobias, a financial planner in Plantation, Fla. “Pay the 15% tax, and put a happy face on the check to the IRS because you’re only paying 15%. Next year, who knows what you’ll be paying?”

As for your IRAs, 401(k)s and other tax-deferred accounts: Under the current regime, it makes sense to use them to protect your Treasury and corporate bond income from the IRS rather than your stocks. That’s because your stocks already pay low 15% federal taxes, both on dividends and long-term capital gains, without a shelter.

But that’s only because the Bush tax cuts favored stocks over bonds. In the past the two have been treated more equally. And if the next Congress and President restore that situation, it will make sense to swap your holdings around. Move the bonds out of your IRA or 401(k), and move your stocks into it. Why? In an environment where stocks and bonds are taxed the same, you should probably shelter the stocks instead of the bonds because those are expected to produce the greater-long term gains.

And that leads, third, to the controversial subject of variable annuities.

These are investment and insurance products that enjoy tax advantages because the IRS treats them as insurance.

Bad variable annuities are high-cost rip-off products you should only recommend to your worst enemy.

But good VARs, such as those offered by Vanguard or Fidelity, are inexpensive tax shelters. Mutual funds held in a variable-annuity account are sheltered from taxation until you finally withdraw the money.

(They are complex in other ways. You need to study them in detail before investing, and they are best used for long-term investments. There can be penalties for early withdrawal before age 59 1/2.)

At the moment they suffer from one big downside: When you cash them in and take the money, the profits aren’t taxed at the low 15% rate on long-term capital gains, but at the higher ordinary income tax rates.

But if Senator Obama raises the long-term capital gains rate to 28%, then that distinction starts to get wiped out. You may find you pay little or no extra tax when you cash out a variable annuity �?? and meanwhile you have enjoyed years of enormously valuable tax deferral.

All this is an early exercise in projection. It’s way too early to make any moves based on the election, and you should probably seek professional advice before taking any bold steps with your money. It is also worth adding that a number of these changes might end up being brought in if John McCain becomes president as well. The one thing I am willing to say with some certainty is that the 15% tax rate on dividends and capital gains isn’t going to be cut.

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com [/i]

[quote]bald eagle wrote:

This idea of higher taxes historically leading to more growth is simply not true. Don’t act like there has been no growth in the last 8 yrs. No one can prevent economic downturns from periodically occuring - not even Obama the great.

[/quote]
Please post tax rates of dem presidents vs. republicans, and their respective gdp (hopefully real gdp), employment, etc.

thanks.

And yes there has been growth the last 8 years and very low taxes. Historically it’s the slowest growth since wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.

Very true, the democrats have made a living for a long time causing class warfare. None of it makes sense, but many who are not doing well feel compelled to listen to this blather.

[/quote]

Yes all these shitty things have been happening over the last 8 years, and clearly all of it is Obama’s (and the Rev.Wright) fault.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.

Very true, the democrats have made a living for a long time causing class warfare. None of it makes sense, but many who are not doing well feel compelled to listen to this blather.

Yes all these shitty things have been happening over the last 8 years, and clearly all of it is Obama’s (and the Rev.Wright) fault.

[/quote]

Stock market is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator - so if you think the market is expecting an Obama win, and you think the President has an effect, well…

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

This idea of higher taxes historically leading to more growth is simply not true. Don’t act like there has been no growth in the last 8 yrs. No one can prevent economic downturns from periodically occuring - not even Obama the great.

Please post tax rates of dem presidents vs. republicans, and their respective gdp (hopefully real gdp), employment, etc.

thanks.

And yes there has been growth the last 8 years and very low taxes. Historically it’s the slowest growth since wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back.

[/quote]

It would take some time to gather all the info and go through it. There are other things that affect economic growth other than just tax rates so you just can’t look at those in a vacuum.

No one has had more to deal with economically than Bush in his first yr.

  1. Declining stock markets
  2. Earnings being restated - killing confidence in the numbers being reported
  3. Dot com bust effects
  4. 9/11 - crippling the airline and travel industries
  5. Because of 9/11 - major corporations and small business basically putting a freeze on capital expenditures

By the way, growth in the last quarter of 1992 was 5%. Clinton took over as the economy was heading back up. Not a bad position to be in.

Considering all of these things that occurred in 2000 and 2001 we have had a pretty good run. The biggest problem now is not housing - it will recover (some regions are just fine now) when the excess inventories are cleaned up - but it is the cost of gas and diesel.

This is not Bush’s fault. He is for more drilling, nuclear energy and alternatives. But he and the repubs are blocked by dems and the environmental lobby. We have enough oil and natural gas here in America to last well beyond 300 yrs. Plenty of time to find realistic alternatives. But these alternatives are not going to happen overnight.

There is no reason not to drill for more oil and natural gas. It can be done safely and also in a very clean way to the environment. Sadly, the liberals in congress really do not want lower gas prices.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
[text][/quote]

Very good points.

I fault Bush for a number of bad decisions (did he lose his veto pen?, etc.), but 100meters thinks that the US President has a joystick plugged directly into the economy and does nothing but press buttons to get his policy wishes.

Bush inherited many fiscal problems - post tech-wreck fallout, terrorist attack, etc. - and could have done a better job, but he doesn’t “drive” the economy.

The use of the “Bush economy” and the “Clinton economy”, etc. - while occasionally a useful short-hand, because Presidential policy can affect the economy - is much abused by folks like 100meters who think that Presidents are cartoon characters on trading cards.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

This idea of higher taxes historically leading to more growth is simply not true. Don’t act like there has been no growth in the last 8 yrs. No one can prevent economic downturns from periodically occuring - not even Obama the great.

Please post tax rates of dem presidents vs. republicans, and their respective gdp (hopefully real gdp), employment, etc.

thanks.

And yes there has been growth the last 8 years and very low taxes. Historically it’s the slowest growth since wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back.

It would take some time to gather all the info and go through it. There are other things that affect economic growth other than just tax rates so you just can’t look at those in a vacuum.

No one has had more to deal with economically than Bush in his first yr.

  1. Declining stock markets
  2. Earnings being restated - killing confidence in the numbers being reported
  3. Dot com bust effects
  4. 9/11 - crippling the airline and travel industries
  5. Because of 9/11 - major corporations and small business basically putting a freeze on capital expenditures

By the way, growth in the last quarter of 1992 was 5%. Clinton took over as the economy was heading back up. Not a bad position to be in.

Considering all of these things that occurred in 2000 and 2001 we have had a pretty good run. The biggest problem now is not housing - it will recover (some regions are just fine now) when the excess inventories are cleaned up - but it is the cost of gas and diesel.

This is not Bush’s fault. He is for more drilling, nuclear energy and alternatives. But he and the repubs are blocked by dems and the environmental lobby. We have enough oil and natural gas here in America to last well beyond 300 yrs. Plenty of time to find realistic alternatives. But these alternatives are not going to happen overnight.

There is no reason not to drill for more oil and natural gas. It can be done safely and also in a very clean way to the environment. Sadly, the liberals in congress really do not want lower gas prices.
[/quote]

Very good points indeed. I expect that I will feel a breeze from 100m’s spin, all the way over here in western Michigan.

80% of the people affected by Obama’s tax plans are small business owners, the people who create most of the jobs.

What shocks me is that you can explain that to his supporters and yet they vote for him. Amazing.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
80% of the people affected by Obama’s tax plans are small business owners, the people who create most of the jobs.

What shocks me is that you can explain that to his supporters and yet they vote for him. Amazing.[/quote]

It is amazing to say the least. I believe about 15% of the country hates America or at least sees this country as the biggest problem in the world. I see the breakdown in the country like this:

15% - America haters
25% - dems - but not crazy left
40% - repubs
20% - middle / undecided / independent

Therefore, we have a 50/50 country on election day. It will be interesting to see where it shakes out this time.

I am always intrigued by how many undecideds (usually 5 - 10 %) there are with less than a month to go to an election. These people are obivously not looking at issues. If someone is undecided a month out - they are an idiot.

As far as Obama - this guy says nothing of substance. Change??? Every presidential election is about change. He gives a good prepared speech, but taking questions off the cuff he stammers and stumbles for the right words making sure he does not say something wrong.

His economic policies are a reincarnation of Jimmy Carters. How scary is that?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The stock market fell 400 points and oil went up $11/barrel. I think its sinking in that this guy might get elected and he really means to do everything he (and his daddy) says. This means rampant inflation, much higher taxes, spiraling regulations. He’ll then make speeches about how evil businessmen are causing it all.

And the idiots will lap it up.

Very true, the democrats have made a living for a long time causing class warfare. None of it makes sense, but many who are not doing well feel compelled to listen to this blather.

Yes all these shitty things have been happening over the last 8 years, and clearly all of it is Obama’s (and the Rev.Wright) fault.

Stock market is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator - so if you think the market is expecting an Obama win, and you think the President has an effect, well…[/quote]

Boston, you aren’t actually saying the market dropped on that day because of Obama, right?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
[text]

Very good points.

I fault Bush for a number of bad decisions (did he lose his veto pen?, etc.), but 100meters thinks that the US President has a joystick plugged directly into the economy and does nothing but press buttons to get his policy wishes.

Bush inherited many fiscal problems - post tech-wreck fallout, terrorist attack, etc. - and could have done a better job, but he doesn’t “drive” the economy.

The use of the “Bush economy” and the “Clinton economy”, etc. - while occasionally a useful short-hand, because Presidential policy can affect the economy - is much abused by folks like 100meters who think that Presidents are cartoon characters on trading cards.[/quote]

Obama will be bad for the economy and caused the market to drop 400 points and oil to go up 11 dollars, but clearly Bush has little if nothing to do with the last 8 years of anemic growth.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Very good points indeed. I expect that I will feel a breeze from 100m’s spin, all the way over here in western Michigan.

[/quote]

very good points, all totally unrelated to how higher taxes have hurt previous economies.

Funny how those who espouse higher taxes never offer to send in more of their own income. If you don’t think 1/3 is enough send in another 10% if it makes you feel better.

Also, statistics show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Liberals are only generous with other people’s money.

You can argue til you are blue in the face and some people will never get it.

You know something, I don’t care if growth is the same (although it cleary is not)whether the top rate if 35 or 40 - it is simply wrong to take that kind of money from people. We have more than enough revenue. Why give them more? The fed gov already does far more than the constitution calls for.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Funny how those who espouse higher taxes never offer to send in more of their own income. If you don’t think 1/3 is enough send in another 10% if it makes you feel better.

Also, statistics show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Liberals are only generous with other people’s money.

You can argue til you are blue in the face and some people will never get it.

You know something, I don’t care if growth is the same (although it cleary is not)whether the top rate if 35 or 40 - it is simply wrong to take that kind of money from people. We have more than enough revenue. Why give them more? The fed gov already does far more than the constitution calls for.

[/quote]

All excellent points.

Taxes are based on ability to pay, with the upper middle class getting hit the hardest. A small business owner can’t hire a $400/hour lawyer to cut his taxes and the poor have little to tax.

It is precisely these people (the upper middle class) that Obama has in his sights. They are the readiest source of revenue because they can’t fight back. And given the history of how our government spends money, paying taxes is equivalent to flushing your money down the crapper.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Funny how those who espouse higher taxes never offer to send in more of their own income. If you don’t think 1/3 is enough send in another 10% if it makes you feel better.

Also, statistics show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Liberals are only generous with other people’s money.

You can argue til you are blue in the face and some people will never get it.

You know something, I don’t care if growth is the same (although it cleary is not)whether the top rate if 35 or 40 - it is simply wrong to take that kind of money from people. We have more than enough revenue. Why give them more? The fed gov already does far more than the constitution calls for.

All excellent points.

Taxes are based on ability to pay, with the upper middle class getting hit the hardest. A small business owner can’t hire a $400/hour lawyer to cut his taxes and the poor have little to tax.

It is precisely these people (the upper middle class) that Obama has in his sights. They are the readiest source of revenue because they can’t fight back. And given the history of how our government spends money, paying taxes is equivalent to flushing your money down the crapper.

[/quote]

My brother and I are in the construction business where most of our earnings at any given time are tied up in receivables. We end up paying tax on money that is owed to us. Tell me we are not screwed up. If the average person had to pay tax on money owed to them - not collected yet - there would be another little tea party going on.

If there were no payroll tax and people had to send in quarterly payments on their own there would definitely be riots in the street in short order.

People don’t miss what they never have.

Hey, when people get money back from the government most don’t even realize it is because they had too much withheld. They think they are getting money back from the gov. Sad, actually.

By the way - thanks for tapping me for the other thread.

Bald Eagle

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
We have more than enough revenue. Why give them more? The fed gov already does far more than the constitution calls for.

[/quote]

We clearly don’t have enough revenue. We’re badly in debt. McCain is proposing more debt. I realize that some in here are kind of faking on the tax cuts, but when you have to borrow to pay for tax cuts, you don’t have enough revenue. Because the cutting spending canard has never happened. No one wants to cut the spending. McCain is not going to give up his disability check no matter how much richer Cindy gets. So that brings us back to the actual issue of the enormous costs of the permanent tax cuts. So let them expire, let the economy improve, reduce spending (end the war), balance the budget, debt goes down, adjust taxes.

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
We have more than enough revenue. Why give them more? The fed gov already does far more than the constitution calls for.

We clearly don’t have enough revenue. We’re badly in debt. McCain is proposing more debt. I realize that some in here are kind of faking on the tax cuts, but when you have to borrow to pay for tax cuts, you don’t have enough revenue. Because the cutting spending canard has never happened. No one wants to cut the spending. McCain is not going to give up his disability check no matter how much richer Cindy gets. So that brings us back to the actual issue of the enormous costs of the permanent tax cuts. So let them expire, let the economy improve, reduce spending (end the war), balance the budget, debt goes down, adjust taxes.
[/quote]

If the Feds were constrained to their constitutional limitations, we could RADICALLY reduce the federal tax that is imposed on each and every american, and have more than enough revenue

To quote Reagan: " we don’t get billion dollar deficits by taxing too little, we get them by spending too much"

Truly we spend too much…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Stock market is a leading indicator, not a lagging indicator - so if you think the market is expecting an Obama win, and you think the President has an effect, well…

100meters wrote:

Boston, you aren’t actually saying the market dropped on that day because of Obama, right?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that if the market is expecting an Obama win, and expects Obama’s promised policies to have an effect, then that is reflected in the current pricing of the market, which is a leading indicator. There are obviously a lot of other causes, and a lot of day-to-day noise, in any particular move.