So since we obliterated your original point re: income taxes you have moved on to the adverse effects of corporate taxes, which Obama wants to lower?

I'm sure this is because of a 3% tax difference and not because of the poker boom. I know you were just answering a question of fact (ie how were you doing under Clinton) but just making a post like this (and your OP) seems partisan to the point of not thinking at all.

Mason,

Both Obama and McCain will substantially raise taxes, one way or the other.

I must have somehow missed this part.

Sklansky, is there any reason you are not more informed on politics? It seems if you used your intelligence and logical reasoning in political theory you could be a great contributor. I find many of your posts in SMP fascinating and love your books. Id definitely buy a 2+2 "Poker and Economics" book.

/Sklansky ass kissing

I have one of Obama's books and two of McCain's. While I have no complaints about the binding on either of them, and indeed all the pages are securely fastened in all three volumes, the binding on "The Audacity of Hope" seems to be much more professional and of a much higher quality.

Because he knows that nothing he knows or does about politics will have any more effect than a rain dance.

He seems to enjoy debating and discussing many matters of philosophy.

As if concentrating the wealth has worked out so well.

Ambinder is reporting Gates will probably stay on with Obama for at least a little while:

Obama still has the final say and won't make the final decision until after the election ldo.

As I said, I think there's a pretty good chance Gates is in for a couple of years. I think 40% is too low but I won't put a number on it myself.

I guess this needs repeating.

There are margins to every policy. There are plenty of businesses out there that will fold or contract if their costs go up by 3%. If you don't understand that much please don't vote. Now, you can argue that hurting these marginal cases is worth the cost to get more revenue into the government's hands but to argue that none of these marginal cases exist is just ridiculous.

This is awesome, but if true, then I assume you're not voting for McCain either?

You could be right, but I view these kinds of stories very skeptically. Obama has a lot to gain by sending out signals that he'd keep Gates - or any Republican - in his cabinet. But I also assume that Obama actually prefers people he knows somewhat better than I expect he knows Gates.

Probably for the same reason Mason is not taking up a rifle to patrol Baghdad ghettos out of the goodness of his heart.

P.S. Your response is tired and lame.

How do they smell?

SRS question.

Conservative analyst Nate Silver's article on McCain's chances in the New York Post:

MCCAIN'S (LONG) ROAD TO ELECTORAL WIN

Well, if something suspicious starts happening on Intrade, then we'll know what's up.

Sure, inasmuch as comparing posting about a presidential election on a poker forum with a publishing company doing something to lobby against a law that will destroy it's sales is a fair comparison.

Adam Smith was a socialist, LDO

Total statist imo.

No, since the increase only applies to income over a certain level, the actual percentage increase you would face would depend upon how much you make over that level. DUCY?

Lol, we started off talking about small business owners. i seriously doubt most "small business" owners make more than $250,000 a year. If I walked up and down my main street and did a survey of all the local proprieters of the shops and restaurants, I bet I wouldn't get any, maybe one, who makes more than that. But I KNOW I wouldn't get any that make more than 5,000,000 per year.

You insist on referring to it as "more" revenue for the government when in fact you have no idea if it will be more.

Taxes will go up for those making >$250k but the will go down for those make <$250k.

So please stop making it sound like Obama just wants to start raking in all this extra cash for the government.

Obama is proposing massive new spending programs. So assuming he gets this on, where will the money come from? Either taxes will be increased in many ways which will affect all of us either directly or indirectly, or the amount of money that the government borrows will go up. But what many of you don't seem to realize is that when the governement increases borrowing, it drives interest rates up, and that in turn is the equivalent of a poorly constructed tax increase.

So my concern is not someone who is making $250,000 or more taking home a little less. My concern is that many small businesses either get destroyed or are badly damaged because other companies, mostly big business, are getting squeezed and this gets passed on to the small business.

In the book publishing world, many important book distributors have gone out of business. In 2001, most of our sales were going through our distributor, and when he couldn't pay us, we almost went out of business. Fortunately, we did get paid for the majority, but not all, of what we were owed and Two Plus Two was able to survive (and our distributor went bankrupt with us not being able to collect any of the remaining money we were due).

In 2003, after we quit using distributors, most of our book sales were now going through one of the two biggest book wholesalers and we had trouble getting them to pay us. At that time we were purchasing some advertising in one of their trade publications. I had to cancel the last couple of months of advertising stating that we didn't have the money to reprint the books we were advertising and it didn't make sense to advertise books we couldn't print. Fortunately, they did get a payment to us after I complained and in time they did catch up and things have been good through this day.

But Borders is now on the brink, and if they collapse, much in the book industry can go down with it. It should be clear to everyone that there are now severe problems with our economy (and the economy worldwide), and putting additional pressure on these companies through the form of higher taxes (either directly or indirectly) will likely damage us as well as many other small businesses.

So my concern is not that my personal income gets reduced a little. My concern is that successful companies like our own quickly become far less successful because many of the organizations that we rely on get severely squeezed. That's why our employees are in jeapordy of losing their year-end bonuses, and why many other workers will probably be fearful of losing their jobs.

MM

But the same is not true regarding helping people to think straight. I would venture to say that a country where 40% its people can think, is better off than a country with equal natural resources where only 20% can think, even if the first country's political system is much worse (within reason.)