Quote Originally Posted by joecoolfreak
I am not saying that a capital gains reduction is going to help a bunch of small business owners. I can say that it won't hurt any and will help a few. There's nothing bad about that.
It's a marketing ploy that the vast majority of Obama supporters is buying hook, line, and sinker.

Why not instead implement something that will help MANY if not ALL Americans instead of a handful? Capital gains does not affect 99.9% of small businesses as much as general taxes and tax shelters.


I don't hate to admit it. It's a great number to use. Small businesses do in fact employ half of the american work place. Again, I want you to look at the math up earlier in the thread. Taxing the personal tax code at rates higher that 250k will actually increase jobs. I will say it again. IF YOU RAISE THE TAX BRACKET FOR THE HIGHER THAN 250K RANGE, IT WILL CREATE JOBS.

Why? Well it's quite simple. If Joe plumber is grossing 1.1 mil in revenue and has 5 employees. He pays each of them 150k. That means he has at least 750k of deductions and if he pays himself 350k for salary, he will pay higher taxes. But instead, Joe plumber has an ounce of intelligence. He could hire one more person and pay then 100k a year and then his take home is 250, essentially dropping him one tax bracket to where he is currently. See where I am going with this? How has this plan prevented him from hiring new jobs? If anything, it gives incentives not to "hoard" all of the profits from the business and invest it in jobs instead.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. There is NO business owner out there that is going to hire an additional employee to reduce his own PERSONAL tax bracket, i.e. just add yet another expense. See, you seem to think that hiring an employee at $100k/yr means that your only cost is $100k/yr. It is NOT. So therefore, he just essentially shaved $100k+/yr off his profits if he/she even has the business essential to afford that $100k/yr employee. Again, compound that by the current economic situation, i.e. business is down all over, then that means that not only are you going to RAISE his taxes, but you're also going to handcuff him/her from hiring anyone else because it's just another expense on top of that.

You're model is not realistic at all.




This right here is where your theory falls apart. Reducing taxes businesses through the personal tax code doesn't offer any incentive to hire more. You are reducing his personal taxes, therefore, just increasing his own personal income. He would have more cash, no one else. You have to get the taxes from somewhere, so if you aren't taxing him, who are you going to tax?
I just explained one way how above.


Spreading wealth is not the same thing as taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. In this case, it's taking it from the rich to use for everybody (get it? spreading the wealth?), otherwise known as taxes.
See, this is where YOU dropped the ball.

Taxes are NOT to support PEOPLE. They are to support GOVERNMENT.

Taxes do pay for public programs, but if you really want to get down to brass tax (no pun intended) the lower end of the income earners which in turn are the same ones that pay NO TAXES now are the very ones USING those public assistance programs supported by OUR TAXES. Follow that? Probably not. I'll elaborate.

Taxes are collected involuntarily literally at the end of a gun. You don't pay, you go to jail. So those same taxes collected go to fund the GOVERNMENT and it's endeavours, which include public assistance programs. Public assistance programs have guidelines. One of those non-negotiable guidelines is that you have to have little to NO INCOME to even get it. So let's put the dots together: People that make NO MONEY and PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH are the very ones USING UP THE MONEY (benefits) FUNDED BY TAXES. Follow that? THIS is the problem, not that we pay or not pay. It is that we are paying MORE than we are COLLECTING because the people USING are NOT PAYING. Get it? If you don't, then walk down to your local unemployment office, social security office, or welfare office. Tell them that since YOU PAY X amount INTO all of those out of your paycheck, you want to get your share back. See what they tell you.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. The only business owners I know besides a few family own enterprises have all started with the intention of selling out. Maybe it's because I work with a ton of technical businesses and that is THE business model everyone uses. It's really not a stong part of my arguement as I can agree that capital gains reductions for small businesses is still not a huge selling point of Obama's in the first place, but rather gravy.
Again, if you have nothing of value to sell then you're not going to sell much. You have to have something of value first for your theory to ever work.