ATTEMPT 3: OBAMA ON SMALL BUSINESS

[Alan®]

Since this seemed to get glazed over.

Obama likes to talk about how a small % of these small business owners are going to be affected by what he is proposing. What he doesn't tell you is he is playing the numbers in his favor. The census bureau keeps track of all businesses operating inside of the U.S. There are something like 24 million. 19 of which are self-employed and have no payroll(no employees).THE CENSEUS BEUREAU DOES NOT TAKE THESE BUSINESSES INTO ACCOUNT.Here is how Obama gets his ridculosly low numbers


Because nonemployers account for only about 3.4 percent of business receipts, they are not included in most business statistics, for example, most reports from the Economic Census
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
YET OBAMA WANTS TO INCLUDE THEM TO MAKE HIS POINT SEEM MORE VALID.

When you look at it this way then yea only a small number will be affected by Obama's tax proposal. But when you look at it the way that the census bureau does, the picture changes dramatically. The percentage of small businesses by definition operating inside the U.S. with a payroll out of all companies with a payroll is 90%.Small businesses accounts for 90% of the businesses in the U.S.

The average small business owner TAKES HOME over Obama's threshold.


According to the survey, the national average salary for the CEO/Partner/Owner job function is $258,400;
http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545

$258,000 Is what they make personally. Most small businesses are setup as LLC's or S-Corps which allows business owner's to claim any profits on their personal statement because it is cheaper to do it that way rather than pay the 39%+ business tax that they would have to pay otherwise. So by taxing small business owner's you are essentially taxing a businesses profit's. Therefore businesses are making less which in turns means: they can't create more jobs, they can't pay people more, they can't expand, they can't do anything at the rate that they would normally.

And this doesn't even take into account all the other things that Obama wants to change like the increase in Payroll Tax, etc.


I'll expand FMLA to cover businesses with as few as 25 employees - this will reach millions of American workers who aren't covered today.

I also find this quote from Obama quite troubling


I'll also stand up for paid leave. Today, 78 percent of workers covered by FMLA don't take leave because it isn't paid. That's just not fair.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_remarks_to_working_wome.html

Not fair? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: So now businesses are supposed to be for work not being done? That's fair?

You guys can talk all you want about how we have to give more to those who make less. That's all well and good but we also have to make sure that the jobs that we have now are not going to be lost by the number of thing Obama wants to change.

[JConner]

redGT, i don't even know your name but we should be friends lol! Great post!

[Alan®]

redGT, i don't even know your name but we should be friends lol! Great post!
LOL

[stephen]

Since this seemed to get glazed over.

Obama likes to talk about how a small % of these small business owners are going to be affected by what he is proposing. What he doesn't tell you is he is playing the numbers in his favor. The census bureau keeps track of all businesses operating inside of the U.S. There are something like 24 million. 19 of which are self-employed and have no payroll(no employees).THE CENSEUS BEUREAU DOES NOT TAKE THESE BUSINESSES INTO ACCOUNT.Here is how Obama gets his ridculosly low numbers


http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
YET OBAMA WANTS TO INCLUDE THEM TO MAKE HIS POINT SEEM MORE VALID.

When you look at it this way then yea only a small number will be affected by Obama's tax proposal. But when you look at it the way that the census bureau does, the picture changes dramatically. The percentage of small businesses by definition operating inside the U.S. with a payroll out of all companies with a payroll is 90%.Small businesses accounts for 90% of the businesses in the U.S.

The average small business owner TAKES HOME over Obama's threshold.


http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par545

$258,000 Is what they make personally. Most small businesses are setup as LLC's or S-Corps which allows business owner's to claim any profits on their personal statement because it is cheaper to do it that way rather than pay the 39%+ business tax that they would have to pay otherwise. So by taxing small business owner's you are essentially taxing a businesses profit's. Therefore businesses are making less which in turns means: they can't create more jobs, they can't pay people more, they can't expand, they can't do anything at the rate that they would normally.

And this doesn't even take into account all the other things that Obama wants to change like the increase in Payroll Tax, etc.



I also find this quote from Obama quite troubling


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_remarks_to_working_wome.html

Not fair? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: So now businesses are supposed to be for work not being done? That's fair?

You guys can talk all you want about how we have to give more to those who make less. That's all well and good but we also have to make sure that the jobs that we have now are not going to be lost by the number of thing Obama wants to change.

lol...u tried to make a poit using a 2002 & 2004 table.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

you should do a LITTLE more research, and take ALL of the figures into consideration. this year alone...we've had 7 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OF SALARY DECREASES WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS SECTOR (from jan 08 to aug 08). the irony is, there was a 234 unit increase in hiring within the small business sector (during that same time period 1/08 - 8/08)...why do you think that is??? small businesses have resorted to increasing staff at lower wages....*GASP* WHY IS THAT????

also take into consideration 2 key factors during the 2002 era....the massive economic surplus and lower cost of living during that time period, and the influx in self-employment due to the "dot com bubble" (how many ppl left their full-time jobs to seek dot com self employment). not to mention...we were already at war with afghanistan, and entered iraq in 2003...2 other factors that increase jobs IN GENERAL (specifically during 2004...i.e. military contractors...CONTRACTORS....CONTRACTORS).

with the current state of our economy, increased cost of living (i graduated high school in 02...i remember fuel ALONE being 3 times cheaper than it is now...less than $2 per gallon in 02 AND 04), and in increased unemployment rate...it's impossible for those figures to hold TODAY'S value. let's just consider fuel ALONE (WHICH IS A TAX DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESSES)...the price has increased over 100% SINCE THAT TIME.

lol, you suggested in another post that i start a small business. in the words of john mccain..."i have, my friend..." i'm actually in the process of introducing my SECOND. when you find the figures for 2008...better yet...ANYTHING AFTER 2004...let me know.

OH...and in response to your "paid leave" gripe:

do you know what FMLA stands for? did you know IT'S A LAW (enacted in 1993)? here's a link to give you a little more info on it...

http://www.answers.com/topic/family-and-medical-leave-act-fmla

it's not "official" but it tells you everything you ever wanted to know about it.

i find it funny that you only quote PART of the man's quote:


I'll also stand up for paid leave. Today, 78 percent of workers covered by FMLA don't take leave because it isn't paid. That's just not fair. You shouldn't be punished for getting sick or dealing with a family crisis. That's why I'll require employers to provide all of their workers with seven paid sick days a year. And I'll support a 50-state strategy to adopt paid-leave systems, and set aside $1.5 billion to fund it. I have a clear plan to expand paid leave and sick leave, Senator McCain doesn't, and that's a real difference in this election.

the second part i bolded...yeah...that's the part you "left out." now, i'm not sure if this $1.5B is monthly, annually, etc. (assuming annually). we're spending $10B per MONTH in iraq...$120B annually. hmmm...so should $120B of our tax dollars go towards the iraq war...or $1.5B go towards you being allowed to have 7 sick-pay days off at work??? i might just be pissing in the wind on this one, but i take it you've never had a real job before, never get sick/injured...or some iraqi really pissed you off.

[Alan®]

lol...u tried to make a poit using a 2002 & 2004 table.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry I couldn't find any newer numbers. Find me new numbers from the census bureau and I'll alter my argument. $20 says it won't be all that different


you should do a LITTLE more research, and take ALL of the figures into consideration.
Right cause I just copied and pasted my argument. :rolleyes: :goodjob:


this year alone...we've had 7 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OF SALARY DECREASES WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS SECTOR (from jan 08 to aug 08). the irony is, there was a 234 unit increase in hiring within the small business sector (during that same time period 1/08 - 8/08)...why do you think that is??? small businesses have resorted to increasing staff at lower wages....*GASP* WHY IS THAT????
HMM IDK maybe because the economy is in the toilet :rolleyes: .Just because the economy goes to crap doesn't mean people can just fold. While companies have laid off people and now as you suggest rehired at a lower cost, do you think that maybe because the company needs these people to function but can't afford to pay what it normally would :thinking: .I always love how democrats portray anyone who makes a buck to be an evil and greedy individual with no moral compass.


also take into consideration 2 key factors during the 2002 era....the massive economic surplus and lower cost of living during that time period, and the influx in self-employment due to the "dot com bubble" (how many ppl left their full-time jobs to seek dot com self employment).
Right but that's where you're getting confused because I'm not counting them the way Obama does.



not to mention...we were already at war with afghanistan, and entered iraq in 2003...2 other factors that increase jobs IN GENERAL (specifically during 2004...i.e. military contractors...CONTRACTORS....CONTRACTORS).
Agreed

with the current state of our economy, increased cost of living (i graduated high school in 02...i remember fuel ALONE being 3 times cheaper than it is now...less than $2 per gallon in 02 AND 04), and in increased unemployment rate...it's impossible for those figures to hold TODAY'S value. let's just consider fuel ALONE (WHICH IS A TAX DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESSES)...the price has increased over 100% SINCE THAT TIME.


lol, you suggested in another post that i start a small business. in the words of john mccain..."i have, my friend..." i'm actually in the process of introducing my SECOND. when you find the figures for 2008...better yet...ANYTHING AFTER 2004...let me know.
Honestly tried looking for an hour couldn't find anything I wouldn't have a problem using as a source.

OH...and in response to your "paid leave" gripe:


do you know what FMLA stands for? did you know IT'S A LAW (enacted in 1993)? here's a link to give you a little more info on it...
I know what FMLA is. I also know that by cutting the requirement in half for who has to follow this puts more operating costs on the backs of employers who, as you have already said, are paying more and more in operating costs.u






the second part i bolded...yeah...that's the part you "left out."
I left it out because I was talking about the pur principle of it and I have actually dealt with the entirety of what he said in another thread :goodjob: . But I'll talk about it again. Who do you think is going to paid for all these week vacations? Surely not the people who are going to be taking these paid vacations. Especially since the people these are aimed at will be seeing that tax deduction. :goodjob:


i might just be pissing in the wind on this one, but i take it you've never had a real job before, never get sick/injured
Pissing in the wind there buddy. :goodjob:

[stephen]

Sorry I couldn't find any newer numbers. Find me new numbers from the census bureau and I'll alter my argument. $20 says it won't be all that different

Right cause I just copied and pasted my argument. :rolleyes: :goodjob:

Right but that's where you're getting confused because I'm not counting them the way Obama does.

Honestly tried looking for an hour couldn't find anything I wouldn't have a problem using as a source.

lol, well if you don't have current numbers...then your argument is useless.

HMM IDK maybe because the economy is in the toilet :rolleyes: .Just because the economy goes to crap doesn't mean people can just fold. While companies have laid off people and now as you suggest rehired at a lower cost, do you think that maybe because the company needs these people to function but can't afford to pay what it normally would :thinking: .I always love how democrats portray anyone who makes a buck to be an evil and greedy individual with no moral compass.

that went WAAAAAAAY over your head. i never said they were greedy or evil...the point i was making IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, "the companies need the people to function but can't afford to pay what they normally would." if the average small business owner take home income was $258K...you seriously don't think the current state of the economy has lowered their take home below $250k??? THAT'S THE WAY OBAMA IS LOOKING AT IT.

the chart you should be looking at is for the 2008 INCOME DISTRIBUTION:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

according to that chart....1.9% of the working population make over $250K. that's where YOU'RE getting confused. increasing taxes on 1.9% of the total working population....that's the whole IDEA.


I know what FMLA is. I also know that by cutting the requirement in half for who has to follow this puts more operating costs on the backs of employers who, as you have already said, are paying more and more in operating costs.

i really don't think you have an idea what FMLA is. FMLA has a number of different requirements...including having to have worked more than 1,250hrs within 12 months, & strict stipulations on the term "sick-pay." the only thing that he wants to cut in half is the number of employees a business must have to fall into that category.


I left it out because I was talking about the pur principle of it and I have actually dealt with the entirety of what he said in another thread :goodjob: . But I'll talk about it again. Who do you think is going to paid for all these week vacations? Surely not the people who are going to be taking these paid vacations. Especially since the people these are aimed at will be seeing that tax deduction. :goodjob:

ummm... :thinking: i'm not sure what your question is... regardless, trying to determine "who's paying vs. who's benefiting" is a horrible way to look at it. the point is, WE ALL PAY, WE ALL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY...think of it like an insurance policy. let's say you pay $100 per week for insurance benefits within 1yr. within that year you never go to the doctor, get medicine, etc. where'd your $5k go that year?