Here is an article that was written by Adam Lerrick a professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
Article displayed below:
Additional articles by economists showing how damaging Barack Obama will be to the United States of America.
Keep in mind that this article like so many other articles that show the flawed ideology of Barack Obama are written by economic scholars and not Marxist/Socialists dictators that promise Utopia.
If Barack Obama can present an advanced degree in Economics and all of his papers that he (Barack Obama) has published over the years then he may be far more creditable than just a golden tongued Marxist Dictator pronouncing that Socialism is the answer.
Here are the things that Barack Obama will accomplish if he is elected.
1. Barack Obama will greatly diminish the ability for anyone to save any money either through savings or investing as a huge amounts of money earned will go to the IRS.
2. Barack Obama will greatly reduce the incentive to work as individuals will to look to see how much of their paycheck and saving are being taken by The IRS and they can make more money by being unemployed with Marxist/ Socialist distributions.
3. Barack Obama will discourage companies from growing as they know that success will lead them to be subject to any “Windfall Profits” tax that the Marxist Socialist want to impose.
4. Barack Obama will create a shrinking job market. As companies pay more and more taxes they will hire less and less people to maintain any kind of reasonable profit margin. People will work much harder for longer hours and any kind of comfortable lifestyle will be stripped from the American Worker.
5. Barack Obama will chase any company that is subject to “Windfall Taxes” off shore greatly reducing the number of jobs in the United States. This will be primarily in the manufacturing sector but will apply to the service sector also.
6. Barack Obama will greatly exacerbate the growing number of “Working Poor” that will become extremely dependent on Marxist Socialism support. As these number grow it will only mandate even higher taxes to offset the spending load of the Marxist/ Socialist Utopia that was promised to the people that elected Barack Obama in the year 2008.
This is a very compelling article for anyone to vote for anyone other than Barack Obama.
“What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?
Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million — 40% — paid no income taxes.
According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes — less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the “very rich” — the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill — will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts — those educated professionals who applaud the “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans — will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners — at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow’s children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of “fairness” — whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.”
Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
I voted today. Did you?