RON PAUL!

Thanks ATL for turning NY into a red state.

Thanks for the shill, Lat.

Wow...I wonder if there are really some knee-jerk liberal democrats in BigLaw out there that are just figuring out that voting for a democrat will hurt them financially? Can they really have been so clueless?

Holy Crap.

First for McCain

thank you 10:27 - now spread that word like wildfire. slightly higher taxes for rich fine, but take away the cap? not acceptable!

another reason to vote against this dipsh_t empty suit

why dont you add hillary

If I remember correctly, the AMT "solution" was a one year quick fix. What happens if nobody puts in a permanent solution. Or in other words, does this even matter if we are stuck paying AMT next year?

news flash people - you'll probably pay higher taxes with democrats. then again, you at least have a chance at effective government. So all you "greed is good"-ers out there can just chill out.

Change in your pocket is all that you'll have left if Obama becomes president.

I come from a blue collar immigrant family so I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and worked very hard to get to where I am today. This is exactly why I WON'T be voting for the Democratic nominee for president in Nov. Why exactly should I be funding the rest of the country's po-dunk citizens who can't get their act together? The majority of the money that I earn should go into my pocket not some welfare mother with 15 children. Flame away I don't care. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

10:30- getting hurt a little bit financially isn't that big of a deal. However, losing ~$15K in takehome pay and taking away my Social Security cap is like getting kicked in the balls.

I think the real question is whether he's going to commit us to never ending war because somebody who lives near somebody else who did something bad ruined his Dad's legay?

Who's up for 4 more years of diminished civil liberties and government by Exxon?

Cheney/Satan 08!

10:30 a.m...... Yes, liberals can be so clueless as to not recognize that an Obama vote will cost them tens of thousands of dollars in social redistribution policies. You work hard and your reward is the fruits of your efforts are taken away and redistributed. But hey... all the dems out there love this type of stuff.

"We all know that Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts. That is a 3% bump across the board to the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%."

Yep, the bad old days. When the economy went through the roof, and first-year associate salaries went for $85k to $125k practically overnight. It's enough to make one tremble in fear, I tell ya!

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

This is no news. You know if you vote Democrat your taxes will go up. With either Oba-man or Hill-dog.
With this, even Huckabee looks sexier every day.

10:35 - You will pay for the others no matter what.

HTH

10:34,
There's absolutely no evidence that says that Democrats establish a more effective government than Republicans.
Newsflash: you're a dipshit commie

Anon 10:32: the AMT doesn't matter nearly as much as the social security tax cap.

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

I've actually seen him talk recently about changing the social security cap to a social security gap. So, between 100,000 something and a higher income level, there is no SS tax, but above the higher income level, the SS tax kicks in again.
He may have changed his position though.

I followed the link and he cites removing the cap as an example of options to fix SS, not as something he plans to do, so I find this article a little disingenuous.
I don't think this is something that will go through because its not the easy fix he proposes. Its more likely that he just gave out what he thought was and example he thought would resonate with the majority of people for political reasons.

Yeah, where is the Hillary column?

Ted Frank says - " Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap."

Obama said - "One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall." http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt

Ted, do you see what you did? What you said and what Obama said are not exactly the same thing. How about a little journalistic integrity?

change in my pocket is all that i have left right now. OBAMA.

Actually, this posting is inaccurate. Obama plans to create a doughnut hole in the system so that you won't pay additional FICA taxes on income between 102K - 250K. It's not until you make 250K that you begin to pay any additional FICA taxes, so all these figures are incorrect.

Thanks for this write-up LAT, $34K is big $$$, may have some folks re-think their vote in Nov.

C'mon, Lat: stop your Hillary trolling. It's obvious you are a supporter of hers and that you don't get the hype about Obama, and are frustrated by it. Hillary is, in your words, what you would consider quite the "diva."

this is why the democratic party consists of the really rich, who aren't significantly affected by tax rates, and the really poor, who don't pay taxes anyway. this is also why i hate democrats. all of them. f-ing bastards want to take my property to redistribute to the lazy, stupid and weak.

10:34 - wouldn't effective government cost less than what you must be assuming is an ineffective government now? I want some efficiency in the white house.

My question about the elimination of the SS cap is whether the SS benefits I receive can now increase. Because right now, I believe, just as there is a cap on the amount of tax you can pay in during the year, there's a cap on how much SS will pay out at retirement age. Does Obama's elimination of the cap also increase the benefits that SS can pay out to higher wage-earners? Or does it simply take more from the higher earning to fund this f'ed-up Ponzi scheme of a Social Security system.

But I voted for Hillary.

This post is completely disingenuous. A direct quote from the linked article:
"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500."

One option is to RAISE the cap. He does say that it could apply to all earnings, but that doesn't seem ironclad, and there's alot of space to raise the cap between $102,000 and $280,000. But I appreciate the attempt at scare politics.

10:41 - you are pathetic.

what 1040 said. partisan bs aside, this is why atl should stick to what it does best and leave politics to the pros. nice work ted frank, dumb ass.

Bill in Chicago (10:36AM) seems to be operating under the common democrat misunderstanding that the Clinton administration had something to do with the dot com boom.

Oh, and Anonymous at 10:36 AM, I know the dems are all for socialist redistribution, but I didn't think that would apply to BigLaw associates who feel like they work so hard for their money...I thought that attitude was reserved for the guilty super-rich (who get a psychic benefit from redistribution) and the lazy poor (who stand to benefit personally from the redistribution).

As someone who actually followed Bush's push for Social Security reform, and examined the options, I think the SS cap should be raised a bit, but not eliminated. However, considering that the SS shortfall is the result of people retiring in the next 20 years not gathering the strength to fix it themselves, a better fix would be to adjust SS payments accordingly to the inflation rate annually, rather than at a rate faster than inflation, and to raise the age of retirement until at least 70. I'm sick and tired of all these old people draining young people of their future because they refused to fix it themselves, and face a little hardship, when they first learned of the problem.

Lat, please quite carrying the Federalist Society's water.

In a November 15 debate in Nevada, Obama said he'd eliminate the cap entirely, and that was alright because it would only affect the "upper class."

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

In other speeches, he has suggested a "doughnut hole" between $102,000 and $200,000--which, combined with Obama's other tax plans, would still be a five-digit tax increase for mid-level associates, and would still mean a marginal tax rate of over 51% for all but first-year New York associates.

Of course what this analysis ignores is political reality: the fact is that though McCain claims to want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, he would have to get a Democratic Congress to agree to that in 2010 (the tax cuts expire and require a new vote). Most political observers would agree that the middle-class tax cuts will be renewed; but thinking that a Democratic Congress would renew tax cuts for the most wealthy (like big law associates) -- keep dreaming. On income taxes, the difference between McCain and Obama in reality will be 0 -- the gravy train for the rich that was the Bush tax cuts will be over in 2010. Oh, and did you also fail to mention that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Well at least this will teach the high leveraged firms a lesson when partners loose 20K per associate

10:35 - If you really are a blue collar immigrant, way to sell out your people. Clarence Thomas would be proud.

It's really pathetic to see many of my fellow biglaw associates so consumed by greed that they's lost (or never acquired) any sense of social responsibility for the genuinely less fortunate in our society.

Sure there are welfare queens out there, but there are MANY more people whose backs you stand on that deserve social services. And our rich asses can afford to pay for it.

How much will taxes have to go up to keep up this *&%$ing war?
And how much is habeas corpus keeping the government from "disappearing" you worth? I'd easily give 34k.

10:42 - i think you're confusing "effective" and "cheap". Quite frankly to pay for all of Bush's reckless spending over the last 7 years, no matter who the president is money is going to have to come from somewhere (Bush got rid of the previous budget surplus pretty fast - ahem - how many billions a day does the war cost us?).

I'd rather take my chances with someone who does more than wear an American flag pin on their lapel. Civil liberties, war in Iraq, environment, these sorts of things. Some things are more important than the fact that us big time lawyers with six figure salaries are upset that a few less luxury items might be coming our way.

besides the really rich pay a smaller % in taxes since most own their own businesses and are able to have a number of write offs and tax "shelters". it is the W-2 earners making $200K-$800K that really feel the pain in this country. No tax credits, get hit with the AMT, can't contribute to Roth IRAs, etc. My effective tax rate (federal, state, local) is about 40%-45% where as my father's effective tax rate (who owns his own business and makes at least 10 times more a year than I do) is about 10%-15%. Also remember 50% of the people in the US pay ZERO income tax, seems like a very fair system.

"On Above the Law, we regularly see commenters threaten to abandon law firms for falling $5,000/year short of market. I therefore thought it worthwhile to examine the effects of Obama’s tax and spending plans on take-home pay."

Big difference between paying higher taxes so others can have social services, and losing $5,000 so some a**hole can be a little more rich.

That is why you should be married, own a home, live in Texas, and not pay near as much in taxes.

Still, we should all vote for McCain to avoid paying more taxes and then those of us who made the correct choice to live in Texas in the first place, will be adequately compensated post tax as we deserve to be.

Notwithstanding all of the (correct) comments above regarding the shoddy journalistic work seen here, one other point should probably be mentioned: the President does not actually enact the tax laws. Many of the president's tax proposals just fall by the wayside. This post is alarmist and dumb.

10:43 - YOU ARE PATHETIC!

Can someone run the numbers real quick on how this would affect years 1 through 4 as an associate? Obviously it would be less of an impact, but probably significant nonetheless.

So, we shouldn't raise taxes, but continue to bankrupt the country with the war in iraq? Sounds fiscally responsible to me!

This country has been very good to me. Given that, I certainly don't mind having my tax rate slightly bumped up. When I meet my maker, I'll feel a lot better knowing I voted to end this god awful war at the expense of 15k or so in taxes.

Can someone run the numbers real quick on how this would affect years 1 through 4 as an associate? Obviously it would be less of an impact, but probably significant nonetheless.

Doesn't Obama want to elimiate the marraige penalty? That should offset most of these increases for those that are married.

How else are we going to pay for this failed republican war Lat?

Wait, you mean the guy who's a Federalist shill and Hillary suck-up wants to rip on Obama by posting misleading (if not outright false) information regarding his fiscal proposals.

I am shocked. Shocked.

Take away my Soc Sec cap? he just lost my vote.

Well, that was the idea of the piece, wasn't it?

The way Ted wants it, we'll just let our kids pay for all the money we spend. Why should we pay for our stuff if we can figure out a way to screw the next generation?

I just love giving money to the federal government. They spend it so wisely.

10:48 - I am not selling out anyone. My parents, who came to this country in debt back in the 70s and have achieved much more then most of us ever will, are just as appalled by the Dems as I am. They believe that hard work should be rewarded. My parents and many like them have never been on public assistance and never taken a handout. Even when my dad lost his job in the early 90s. This country was build on hard work. If I wanted to live in a socialist country where they tax their citizens income at over 50% I would move to France.

Ted,

Instead of referencing some comments from Nov., why don't you look at what Obama said yesterday (and update your inaccurate or dishonest post):

During the forum, Obama referenced a “doughnut hole” where people would not start paying the payroll tax until their incomes reached $200,000 or $250,000.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/25/obama.html

Time for the fair tax.

even the comments by democrats are stupid. raising taxes slows economic growth you imbeciles. the bush tax cuts have dramatically increased revenue due to increased GDP. it's not about paying for social services, which are counterproductive at worst, ineffective at best. it's about wealth distribution.

communism doesn't work you stupid a-holes. this is America. the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the federal government would be using its police power to cease our property to this extent.

and f-u to you whining bastards that say "bring our troops home," blah blah blah. I AM A UNITED STATES MARINE. you d-bags likely don't even know anyone in the military. you don't "support the troops;" you support getting a democrat in power to achieve your agenda. you don't give a shit about the troops or the ideals upon which this country was founded. you are spoiled brats. limousine liberals.

Ted Frank . . . Nice work hustling to find support for your original comment. Here's the thing, if you knew that there was a better cite to support your point when you wrote the article, why did you take the disengenuous route and use a cite that does not fully support your point? Could it be that you were more concerned with establishing your conclusion than with adequately supporting it?

I'll answer for you - "I'm sorry guys. I'm a total hack. What I do is find a conclusion that I like and then do the best I can to find links that kind of support it. Some people call it 'truthiness' but it's all I know."

Thanks Obama for helping to pay for the war. We love you.

from Obama's website "Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
He definitely wants to increase the cap on payroll taxes. Like everything else he does not have a concrete plan, but he certainly HOPES he can CHANGE the current system and take more of your CHANGE.

10:42 -- before you begin to create an even greater sense of entitlement amongst the non-working class let's take a quick moment and examine exactly who is standing on whose back.

The truth is that the top 25% of wage earners in this country pay over 86% of the tax bill (it is the bottom 75% that is standing on our hard-working backs). Nevertheless, you want to make this country a fair place. How much of your paycheck did you donate to charity, perhaps you should think about donating more in the name of fairness? I, for one, could care less what you do with your money---so please, have the same consideration for mine. Buy all the fishing poles you want (oh, wrong party -- you fish for the "less fortunate" so they can expect never to lift a finger to survive).

Try supporting a family with your Biglaw income in NYC and I think you will have a new definition of "rich."

The Democrats are wealth-redistributors at their finest. Their loyal followers are going to get a check from the US treasury when the fact of the matter is that they are getting a check from my fricken bank account. Let's just forget about the tax code and give anyone making less than $150,000 per year the opportunity to mug at least on Big Law associate a month and take between $350 to $1000 per mugging depending on how poor they are.

I'd pay far more than $34k per year to restore honor and integrity to the white house.

..but then again, I had enough belief in myself to go for a scholarship at a lower ranked school and not have to pay for my education and I am still getting paid as much as all of you. Therefore, I have less to pay in school loans so this doesn't affect me. All I can say to the rest of you is to come up with an investment plan so you don't have to pay so much. Don't you all work in BIGLAW? Can't you figure out some sort of Investment Vehicle to get around this? Somebody you know has to be an accountant or tax lawyer. Put your nose to the grindstone, figure out some way to reduce your tax load and lets get back our standing in the world and our civil liberties.

When these fifth year associates are drafted by McCain, they won't have to worry about the socsec cap anymore.

can someone do a chart that adds a column for all the future tax increases we'll need to pay the interest (much less the principle) on the hundreds of billions we borrowed to fight in iraq?

i'd feel much better about a tax increase to keep social security solvent than a tax increase to bomb the crap out of brown people.

Hey guys, Don't worry too much. All Obama has is empty rhetorics. He wouldn't do anything of the sort. In fact, I don't think he will change anything.

Just vote for him to make yourself and our nation feel good, OK?

"the most wealthy (like big law associates)"

Who can say that with a straight face?!'

Hey, 11:00 am

Nice way to engage in debate and prove your point...so you're a US marine, does that make you the authority on everything, and everyone that disagrees with you simply wrong? You're everything that's wrong with America, not the "limousine liberals".

sorry 10:42 -- that was for 10:48

It's great to mention that this guy blogs for Overlawyered, but not that he's on staff at the American Enterprise Institute, where they still think that Cheney has some great ideas on government.

The latte-sipping limousine liberals who support Obama aren't even smart enough to realize they're voting against their own self-interests. Plus it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside to vote for a black person. "See, I must be a good person, because I'm voting for Hussein Obama!!" Pathetic.

There needs to be a breakdown of how the Fair Tax Plan greatly benefits young associates still paying down their law school debt. Assume full debt for law school.

Hillary is hot

10:51 has it right. One of the things that's scary on the Democrats tax plans is that mid-to-senior level associates are at the worst possible spot for taxes. We make enough to lose a lot of the deductions, lose the chance to do an IRA, and get hit by the AMT. But we don't make enough to simply ignore the impact of taxes, and the cap on the SS payroll tax is one of the only real breaks that we get.

The other thing that is uniquely bad for associates is that our jobs, and the money we earn, are essentially temporary. I'm on NY scale as an 8th year, making $280 plus bonus. If you told me that you were going to freeze my current compensation, but I could keep my job for as long as I wanted (assuming I performed well) I would take it. But we all know that's not the way it works. So if you clerk for a year, as many in Biglaw do, you essentially have 7 or 8 years to sock away money before, in most cases, hitting a drastic pay cut. And once you hit that pay cut (by going in-house or to the government, or teaching, or going to a smaller firm (if that option is available) you stand a good chance of never making Biglaw money again.

That's not to say that you will be poor (few in the U.S. are truly poor) or that you can't have a financially secure life making much less than a senior associate. But it does seem that a lot of the commenters aren't keeping the "up or out" dynamic in mind when discussing the fairness of substantially increasing the already-high tax burden on those Biglaw associates earning between $200K and $300K per year.

Sure, let's keep taxes low, spend the next 100 years spending billions in Iraq, run up the national debt, force us to pay drastically higher taxes 20 years from now, and cripple the economic security of this country.

Ricardian Equivalence.

Anonymous 10:56. Not including special bonus effects, the decrease in take-home pay/equivalent paycut is:

First-year: $8420/$14600
Second-year: $11846/$20592
Third-year: $13884/$24134
Fourth-year: $17062/$29659
Sixth-year: $22035/$38303

Give or take, since I'm making assumptions about the change of bonus (and these associates were selfish and didn't give any money to charity), about the availability of other deductions, and about how NY will structure its taxes 2009. I'll send the spreadsheet to anyone who wants it, and you can fiddle with the pay assumptions yourself, though the spreadsheet is NY-specific.

Hillary has said clearly that she would not eliminate the cap. Obama has said many times that he thinks eliminating the cap is a good idea.

All Obama has to do is be clear about what he wants to do. Hillary is clear that she wont do it.

" I AM A UNITED STATES MARINE. you d-bags likely don't even know anyone in the military. you don't "support the troops;"

Wow buddy, before you go shoot some people in a self-important rage, take a moment to remember where your salary as a MARINE comes from...

Maybe your right... maybe there shouldn't be any taxes at all...

LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE LAT YOUR HILLARY TROLLING IS REPULSIVE

If Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass these tax increases, I find a $100k per year job. I would rather a lot make less money (and work a lot fewer hours) than have those idiots do the equivalent of pissing my hundred dollar bills into the street.

the American Enterprise Institute is that bastion of rational thought that still thinks Global Warming is a farce - oh, and they are funded by, among other things, shitcans of money from ExxonMobil

Hey Lat - thanks for presenting such a well-reasoned, factually-accurate viewpoint from a truly neutral source

11:00(1) - So because your parents worked hard and made it, everybody can? You're completely oversimplifying the issue. I know lots of people that are working harder than you can imagine, but not making it because they didn't have two loving parents and never were able to get a decent education.

I'll bet the vast majority of people who fume over high taxes and social services have never lived, worked, or socialized with people in low-income communities.

I must be in the wrong place. Shameless political blogging: I can get that anywhere.

Time to look for a new blog.

Anonymous 11:08, every tax plan to help people with student loans is phased out well before they reach BigLaw salaries. You can deduct interest on student loans today, but not if you're making $200,000.

first

1. McCain's Iraq policy is guaranteed to ramp up federal military spending in a prolonged effort to stabilize Iraq. That type of financial outlay is guaranteed to accelerate the rate of inflation. You might have more money in your pocket, but that doesn't help if its worth less.

2. The chart is misleading - it assumed that McCain does nothing about Social Security, which does not seem feasible. They will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits. I'm not confident in McCain's ability to cut benefits. And if Bush couldn't privatize with a Republican House and Senate after he just won reelection, McCain will be even less likely.

3. If McCain does nothing on Social Security, those deficits will have a further inflationary impact.

I think it would be more balanced and responsible to at least attempt to calculate what happens if McCain either does nothing on SS or does something with a tax impact.

From Obama’s website: “Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security…”

From the article cited by Frank: “One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”

Now, I’m not a neo-conservative hack working at a think tank in the pocket of the Republican party, but I think “increasing the maximum” and “raise the cap” do not mean “end the social-security tax cap.” But then again I read above a third grade level…

Hey, Lat -- How about equal time, such as a post headlined "McCain = Your great grandsons get to die in the Iraqi occupation in 2108?"

The next prez--either McCain or Obama--has been screwed by Bush: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

At least without Iraq draining our tax dollars, we can begin our way to:

1. not being owned by China and Japan
2. affordable health care
3. making sure THIS generation actually gets some of the Social Security we paid for

Obama '08!

Guys,
Remember that social security is an investment in your future. The money going to SSI is invested in a lock box, and you will get all of it back (plus a substantial return), when you retire.
Also, I am currently seeking investors for a lucrative business opportunity connected to Amway. Please subscribe to my newsletter if you are interested.
Sincerely,
Someone who invests your money for you so you dont lose it all in that crazy "stock market" (D-America)

Isn't there always a big difference between what politicians say and what they actually do? Will Obama really implement this stuff? Isn't he just trying to talk a lot of smack to gain votes without any intention of actually implementing it?

11:05 - i am a Marine so i know first hand that liberals don't "support the troops." i saw how you bitches tried to keep recruiters off my ivy league campus. i know first hand how you shallow weasels look down upon us. of course you think that i'm "everything that's wrong with this country." you, of course, owe your freedom to say that to those that have worn the uniform. but you're too much of a pampered baby to appreciate that.

so i say again, F-U for trying take my hard-earned money so you can sleep better at night thinking that you are "helping the needy" or some other crap. this country was built on hard work, not handouts.

"If Obama/Reid/Pelosi pass these tax increases, I find a $100k per year job. I would rather a lot make less money (and work a lot fewer hours) than have those idiots do the equivalent of pissing my hundred dollar bills into the street."

Agreed. I work my ass off for this money: I already wonder why keep doing this when I lose 43% or so of what I "make." If there's a time when my effective tax rate is such that I take home less than half of what I earn, I'll let someone else burn out to pay a lot of taxes.

11:11, if it makes you feel better, I don't feel global warming is a farce, I drive a Prius, and I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax if we can get worldwide compliance to avoid the counterproductive effect of driving manufacturing away to nations with worse carbon profiles than the US.

And, like I said, there are other reasons to vote for president than one's wallet.

I love the "you are pathetic" rejoinders. Very effective advocacy.

I am more than happy to (and do) share with others through charities that actually help the less fortunate, but giving money to the government is and always will be like flushing it down the toilet.

Biglaw for McCain!!

Ahem. I just saw the most recent update of the "Inconvenient Truth" slide show. Bad things happening way faster than we thought. Remember that big 'ole ice sheet over Greenland? Bitch is moving now. And if it falls off . . . Well, that $34,000 pay cut prolly won't matter so much, what with Manhattan underwater and so forth.

Might could fix this thing. Gonna take $$ though . . .

I agree with 11:02 - try raising 2 kids on a Biglaw NYC salary and see how "rich" you are. Taxes break you already (and I live in NJ so my taxes are lower than real New Yorkers), and buying is unaffordable (I could afford a mortgage, but just not the down payment). But I guess we, being part of the leisure class, deserve to pay more, right?

I want my kids to grow up in a healthy country, but I need them to grow up in a healthy household first. If taxes go up, I'll have to find a new job outside Biglaw.

11:00(2), please take your PTSD meds and have a nice steaming mug of STFU.

I just got financially crushed... by Obama.

Wait, Obama got the nomination? No? THEN SHOW HILLARY'S PLAN AS WELL.

PATHETIC.

Seriously, this post requires a follow up that addresses what happens if McCain is President. Here's his solution to funding SS off his website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm

"Reform Social Security: John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power."

That's it. The rest of the website is silent on the issue. His plan is the Bush plan on SS, and it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. He'll end up passing a social security tax increase a-la Ronald Reagan (meaning the tax burden will be the same or worse than Obama's). But the inflationary impact of doing nothing, combined with military spending, will be staggering.

There's the GOP in a nutshell. After it was revealed that his assertions about what Obama will do are false, Ted Frank refuses to admit he is wrong and instead says 'Oh, he mentioned this is something he might do in a speech once.' Absolutely pathetic.

"Big difference between paying higher taxes so others can have social services, and losing $5,000 so some a**hole can be a little more rich."

Yes, because US social services spends our money so effeciently and wisely on those that just catch a bad break...

Life at the bottom: S.F.'s Sunnydale project

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNB4RN991.DTL

For the TX biglaw associate, this also has enormous ramifications. A democratic candidate could mean having to hold-off on the 3rd car garage at your weekend lakehouse.

A republican candidate = 3rd car garage PLUS a new 3rd car!

I'm glad Ted is taking the time to respond to tangential posts but continues to ignore a substantive and damning critique of his analysis regarding what Obama has actually suggested.

Well played, sir.

11:22 - Obama is also going to take a percentage of your kids for the good of the country.

Also, the deficit was a lot smaller before the Democrat Party took over Congress and started spending like drunk four years olds. Remember, they took over in January of 2007.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MJU5901&show_article=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/national/main3822385.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3822385

If Ted Frank posts again, I'll boycott ATL. What an unbalanced pile.

Now let's see a calculation of how much the gov't will have to raise taxes to service and pay off the $10 trillion in additional national debt McCain's continuation of Bush policies will cost us...

11:23 - what's the matter? did the truth hurt your little feelings? awwwww, boo f-ing hoo. but go ahead and "support the troops" by demeaning their injuries and attempting to quell their voice. that's the liberal way.

and you nitwits think that you'll "restore honor and dignity" by voting for a freshman senator. ah yes, the last liberal in the oval office got his pee-pee sucked by an intern while authorizing military action. morons.

There's the GOP in a nutshell. After it was revealed that his assertions about what Obama will do are false, Ted Frank refuses to admit he is wrong and instead says 'Oh, he mentioned this is something he might do in a speech once.' Absolutely pathetic.

11:02 & 11:22 - Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for you and your financial troubles. You just have no sense of what it is really like to struggle financially. And I'm not talking about your oh so crushing student loans. Give me a f*cking break.

11:17

I have friends, family members, and acquaintances that have fought for and/or died for this country. Don't lecture me on supporting the troops. What I have a problem with is not your status as a current/former marine, but rather your assumption that your military background entitles you an opinion that is worth more than mine, or even some so-called liberals that look down upon the troops. For the record, I don't support eliminating the payroll tax as the end-all and be-ll fix for SS. I don't support keeping military recruiters off of campuses, because frankly "don't ask, don't tell" sounds fine for me.

And calling me a "pampered baby"? I'm not the one who went to an ivy league school, and I'm saddled with debt from undergrad and currently law school.

And as far as "taking your hard earned money," if the military produces arrogant douchebags like yourself, I definitely don't want my "hard earned money" going to the GI Bill or any other social program supporting those like yourself.

11:25 and 11:25 and 11:31, when Hillary Clinton accused Obama of doing exactly what he said he would do (and what I presume he'll do in the spreadsheet I generated), Obama did not say "Oh, your figures are wrong, I really mean a doughnut hole," he defended his plan because it only affects the "upper class," i.e., you.

And even if Obama flip-flops and officially renounces his original plan to change to a doughnut hole plan at $200,000, my marginal tax rate analysis remains correct, and BigLaw associates are still taking a large hit.

I stand by my analysis.

I'm one half of a two-lawyer family, so if this happens, it's really going to impact me. I'm potentially in favor of it anyway, because I care about the sustainability of social services.

Why should I pay a lesser percentage of my salary to social security than someone who makes $200K less than me? No matter how you spin it, that's unfair. Yeah, we work like crazy, but so do a lot of people, for a whole lot less.

In any event, people should educate themselves about the positions of the candidates. It's not exactly news that Democrats tend to favor higher taxation than Republicans. While Lat has misrepresented Obama's position, those who are astonished by this idea have no one to blame but themselves.

I second 11:25 - Ted Frank, when will you explain / own-up-to your dishonest / sloppy reporting?

The real threat to our future wealth is the exploding national debt.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the last three presidents to spend increase spending at a slower rate than the growth of revenue were Clinton, Carter, and LBJ.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c2.cfm

15% of all government spending already goes toward interest payments on the national debt. Not paying the debt off, just interest payments. In other words, if not for the huge debt racked up under Reagan, Bush, and Bush, we could cut taxes by 15% and still be in the same place.

McCain plans to continue running huge deficits. He has yet to point out one substantial cut he would make to federal spending.

In the long run, raising taxes to pay off the deficit is a far smarter way to go. Especially for those of us who are young and earn high levels of income. We are the ones who will wind up bearing the burden of GOP deficit spending.

Guys in my high school used to pay in the 52% tax bracket all the time. It was no big deal.

Wow! The level of Hillary shilling is incredible! This is what it looks like a week before going 0-15 in primaries. To all you highly educated but math deficient cogs...This WAR is gonna get paid for whether you like it or not! McCain is a f'ing liar, he has to raise taxes. Iraq is costing US (that's true taxpayers) 9-12 BILLION a MONTH! In addition, by the end of next year half of the U.S. banks will be merged or shut down, interests rates will skyrocket (the rates are being artificially inflated...they are just printing new money w/ nothing backing it) companies will find it difficult to get money/loans, and they won't be able to hire new people which would mean higer unemployment and crime...I would rather NOT be tackling all of that and fighting a useless war w/ no end. You are gonna pay regardless! OBAMA '08- Time for some American Dignity for a Change!

re: 11:29 and Ted Frank lies-
I dont think anyone has "revealed that [Frank's] assertions about what Obama will do are false[.]" Obama says on his website he will seek to increase the cap on payroll taxes. He has given many speeches that include talk of eliminating the cap. He has also said he wants a donut. He has not taken a firm position. You would think a Senator would have a position on Social Security. President Bush has clearly pushed the issue with Congress repeatedly. Unfortunately, Obama, along with the rest of Congress, is afraid to touch the issue. If Obama's vague statements are being misinterpreted, Obama should come out with a more specific plan instead of begging for change.

Ted Frank - 11:11 here, you said "Hillary said," and "Obama didn't say." Where are the citations? Can you point us to a source, preferably one that actually stands for the proposition for which you cite it?

forget the inconvenient little fact that tax revenues tend to be inversely related to the tax rate

lower taxes = inreased spending = economic growth + a greater tax base

but wait, wouldn't it just be better if we gave all our money to the fed so they could spend it for us

"And even if Obama flip-flops and officially renounces his original plan to change to a doughnut hole plan at $200,000, my marginal tax rate analysis remains correct, and BigLaw associates are still taking a large hit."

Ted, how can you tax $80K that isn't supposed to be taxed and claim that the analysis remains correct?

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people: the notion that there is a real difference between Red and Blue politics.

My taxes already cover at least 8 kids to go to private school.

I can't afford one more.

You forgot one other thing - Obama's tax increases along with the low interest rates are going to hurt the economy, driving it into a serious recession with serious inflation.

It's amazing how many people fall for the Democrats are better on the economy line. No, the Democrats are better at taxing you and having the government spend on inefficient programs that hurt the economy.

And to those who ask "Why should I pay a lesser percentage of my salary to social security than someone who makes $200K less than me", the answer is obvious. Your social security benefit is capped. Why should someone have to pay so much more into a system that will not affect them in anyway? Furthermore, social security is an old age insurance program. Those with higher salaries are less likely to need such insurance. Usually those less likely to need insurance benefits pay lower rates.

The best way to help the working poor is to get the iron fist of government out of the economy and let the free market engine create jobs and wealth like it has bee