Obama vs. Plumber

[JConner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA



Wow, I bet that guy wishes he would have said so much more.

I'm sure if you are put in a position like that on national t.v. it may be hard to think of clever responses but, mine would have went like this...

"I don't want to go back to the years when I was making less than $250k, why would I want to do that? BUT, now that I am, I will be punished by you so that the poor people (the person I once was) can have my money."

I like how Obama, once again, said he will eliminate capital gains taxes on small business.

And Obama's response to the guy bringing up the flat tax idea shows that he has never read any books on the flat tax or the FAIR TAX. Obama has no idea what he is talking about.

[Alan®]

I love it. 95%. I love it. Where in the hell does he get these numbers. Not to mention he was like oh shit now I have to explain this.

[stephen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA



Wow, I bet that guy wishes he would have said so much more.

I'm sure if you are put in a position like that on national t.v. it may be hard to think of clever responses but, mine would have went like this...

"I don't want to go back to the years when I was making less than $250k, why would I want to do that? BUT, now that I am, I will be punished by you so that the poor people (the person I once was) can have my money."

I like how Obama, once again, said he will eliminate capital gains taxes on small business.

And Obama's response to the guy bringing up the flat tax idea shows that he has never read any books on the flat tax or the FAIR TAX. Obama has no idea what he is talking about.

personally, i think he answered the dude's question just right. he basically told the man that if he's not going to vote for him because of that difference, then it's cool...but he just wanted him to understand. what kills me is that people who aren't even business owners, and probably WON'T BE within the next 4-8yrs seem to make such a big deal about this.

redgt and i had a discussion last week about small businesses...and i found something else interesting that a lot of people don't get. i found small business payroll and hiring statistics. during rough economic periods, the business payroll would decrease....BUT, hiring would increase...meaning INCREASED LABOR TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND, AT A CHEAPER PRICE.

what's also funny is that some of you don't seem to understand capital gains and how it CAN relate to small businesses (not all, but SOME). most small businesses have an investor or some sorts, who is also considered an "owner" of the particular business. most investors don't invest in small businesses for the long-haul...they get in, make profit...and get out. when the business sells (kinda like the guy on the video who is BUYING THE BUSINESS FROM SOMEONE), then the seller/owner doesn't have to pay capital gains on it under obama. the guy purchasing the business may also benefit...who knows...the original owner could have been padding the price to offset the 28% capital gains tax that he'll have to fork over. some small business owners/investors also own the property they work in/out of...if the business grows and they need a larger facility, they sell it to purchase another...CAPITAL GAINS...

fair tax...well that's a story within itself. obama stated on fairtax.org that he wasn't completely against it, he just needed to research it more. there's A LOT OF POLITICAL FIGURES who think the 23%-28% fair tax rate isn't accurate, and think the rate would be more like 40%. read a few articles from ppl who are against it, and you'll see...he's not the only one who thinks that way.

[SPOOLIN]

well my wifes family owns business and runs business and that shit isn't gonna fly dude. You are right, you can't bitch if it doesn't pertain to you, but what if it DOES! We will have that burden for ourselves one day when we are running it instead of them.

[josh green]

According to Neil Boortz Americans spent $8.2 billion dollars last year and only took in $4.4 billion, thats pretty close to double the amount spend as opposed to the amount earned. Under the FairTax act here would be the figures that the government would make.
23% of 8.2 billion dollars is $1,886,000,000.
33% of 4.4 billion dollars is $1,452,000,000.
Thats $434 million more from the Fair Tax rather than our current income tax system.
Obama's claims of fair tax being more along the lines of 40% would be $3,280,000,000 of government intake.
This is assuming Boortz's intake/spending figures are correct.

[Deke]

I love it. 95%. I love it. Where in the hell does he get these numbers.

Well I already voted, so I don't care nearly as much about this subforum anymore, but I don't think he just pulled it out of his ass. From the reasoning I see, I believe that 95% of tax-paying Americans make less than $250,000 a year. Hence, him saying that 95% of tax-paying Americans will get a tax cut or at least not get a raise in there taxes.

Whether or not it is true that 95% of tax-paying Americans are below the 250k mark, I have no clue.

[Alan®]

No go back and watch the video again. Obama claims that 95% of small businesses don't make 250K or more

[SPOOLIN]

No go back and watch the video again. Obama claims that 95% of small businesses don't make 250K or more

I find that really hard to believe. I work for a small business and he spoke of revenue. There's a big difference between revenue and profits. He said 250,000$ in revenue. We do a shit load more than that in revenue, i can tell you that much.

[Alan®]

I find that really hard to believe. I work for a small business and he spoke of revenue. There's a big difference between revenue and profits. He said 250,000$ in revenue. We do a shit load more than that in revenue, i can tell you that much.

What obama claims is simply impossible if the AVERAGE small business owner makes somewhere between $230-$260k. If Obama's claim was correct the average would have to be ~100k

[BanginJimmy]

If Obama is talking about small business that make over 250K predeductions then I would say that he is speaking about 99% of all small businesses. If he is talking about 250K AFTER deductions then I think that number goes down to about 80%. My wifes business does several million a year in recipts, but that doesnt mean that she profits that much.

[Alan®]

If Obama is talking about small business that make over 250K predeductions then I would say that he is speaking about 99% of all small businesses. If he is talking about 250K AFTER deductions then I think that number goes down to about 80%. My wifes business does several million a year in recipts, but that doesnt mean that she profits that much.

Right and thats what I'm saying. I want to know who feeds him this bullshit that 95% of small businesses don't make that.

[4dmin]

i don't think any of us have real # on the exact % or supporting evidence to say otherwise...

anyhow he was completely upfront and answered the guy to his face. i don't care if you like him or not; he answered the question and stuck to his guns on the issue. majority of population does make under 95% including small business... either way the majority of americans will save $$$. i don't know about you but i've never seen a gov policy that can make everyone happy. someone is always not going to like something being done. i just find it funny you want to keep picking on BS when there is truly an economic crisis even McCain isn't addressing.

[Alan®]

i don't think any of us have real # on the exact % or supporting evidence to say otherwise...

Are you kidding me?

Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the small businesses are doing well enough to supply half the jobs in this country?

[jwrape]

Spread the wealth=Socialism..... Soviet Union tried that once.....

[joecoolfreak]

What obama claims is simply impossible if the AVERAGE small business owner makes somewhere between $230-$260k. If Obama's claim was correct the average would have to be ~100k

Your math is way off here again. Impossible? Lets see a hypothetical example:

There are 100 small businesses
95 of them make 100k/year
5 of them make 3.1mil/year
Average profit of all small business: 250k
95% of them make less than 250k

Am I saying these numbers are the real numbers? No
Is it possible that 95% of small business make less than 250 if the average owner makes 250? Sure, it just depends on what the actual numbers are, so until you can prove otherwise, I am inclined to believe the numbers at face value.

Think about it this way...you don't have a hard time believing that 5% of the population pays 95% of the taxes...Very large or small numbers can skew averages way off from what you might think.

[4dmin]

Are you kidding me?

Do you honestly believe that only 5% of the small businesses are doing well enough to supply half the jobs in this country?

since you seem to know everything please show the exact number of small business and their tax break outs? and if a company only makes 250k i wonder how many people they are able to employee. so state how many private under 250k small businesses created jobs in the past 4-8 years. i would also like to see you numbers on how many jobs were created in corporate america which obviously makes over 250k.

i won't hold my breath.

[Alan®]

Your math is way off here again. Impossible? Lets see a hypothetical example:

There are 100 small businesses
95 of them make 100k/year
5 of them make 3.1mil/year
Average profit of all small business: 250k
95% of them make less than 250k

Am I saying these numbers are the real numbers? No
Is it possible that 95% of small business make less than 250 if the average owner makes 250? Sure, it just depends on what the actual numbers are, so until you can prove otherwise, I am inclined to believe the numbers at face value.

Think about it this way...you don't have a hard time believing that 5% of the population pays 95% of the taxes...Very large or small numbers can skew averages way off from what you might think.

Eh. I guess you're right but I just have a hard time believing that out of 5 million small businesses only 5% are doing well enough to support half the jobs in this country. You're talking about 250,000 businesses making up for 4.75 million basically tiny businesses. I can see where you're coming from but at the same time you see what I'm saying?

[alpine_aw11]

Honestly, I was very against Obama's initial tax plan. But I'm really starting to come around with what he's saying. Of course the fair tax pwns all, but with our current system I think his approach is more comprehensible. And btw he answered the question pretty well.

[joecoolfreak]

Eh. I guess you're right but I just have a hard time believing that out of 5 million small businesses only 5% are doing well enough to support half the jobs in this country. You're talking about 250,000 businesses making up for 4.75 million basically tiny businesses. I can see where you're coming from but at the same time you see what I'm saying?

Yes I do see where you are coming from. I don't think you understand at all how businesses, or more importantly small businesses are taxed.

Let's do another hypothetical.

A small business employs five people and is an S Corp and the owner uses personal taxes to pay the income tax instead of using the corporation. Keep in mind that this is very simplified for the purposes of illustrating a point.

This business grosses 1mil in revenue(money brought in). Let's also assume that the business provides a service, not a product for simplification. Let's say that each employee makes a set salary of 150k. They are all taxed indivdually on their own taxes and since they are less than 250, the taxes under an Obama plan do not go up.

150x5=750k

This is already taxed, so it is deducted from the 1mil in profits. Let's assume that there are no other deductions that are possibly (highly unlikely).
That means that the owner will claim 250k and pay personal taxes as such.

No taxes are raised with the plan in question.

Lets assume that company makes 1.1mil the next year and no one gets a raise.

that means that the owner now makes 350k for the year.

His taxes will now go up, but he shouldn't have to fire anyone. Nothing will adversely affect him, except that instead of 350k the next year in his take home pay, he will pay 3% or so higher in taxes.

1st year, he paid 90k in taxes and his actual take home was 160k
2nd year, his company made more bumping him over the 250k mark, so he will pay 136.5k and his take home will be 214k.

How has this new plan hurt him? Why would he have to cut back on anything. If he can live on 160 the first year, taking home 214 the second year doesn't hurt either?

Now, back to the original point, how much does this small business get taxed on? 250k

It is a profitable business that employs 5 people. As he grows, the more people he hires, as long as he doesn't increase his own personal salary, his companies taxable income doesn't grow.

[4dmin]

Yes I do see where you are coming from. I don't think you understand at all how businesses, or more importantly small businesses are taxed.

Let's do another hypothetical.

A small business employs five people and is an S Corp and the owner uses personal taxes to pay the income tax instead of using the corporation. Keep in mind that this is very simplified for the purposes of illustrating a point.

This business grosses 1mil in revenue(money brought in). Let's also assume that the business provides a service, not a product for simplification. Let's say that each employee makes a set salary of 150k. They are all taxed indivdually on their own taxes and since they are less than 250, the taxes under an Obama plan do not go up.

150x5=750k

This is already taxed, so it is deducted from the 1mil in profits. Let's assume that there are no other deductions that are possibly (highly unlikely).
That means that the owner will claim 250k and pay personal taxes as such.

No taxes are raised with the plan in question.

Lets assume that company makes 1.1mil the next year and no one gets a raise.

that means that the owner now makes 350k for the year.

His taxes will now go up, but he shouldn't have to fire anyone. Nothing will adversely affect him, except that instead of 350k the next year in his take home pay, he will pay 3% or so higher in taxes.

1st year, he paid 90k in taxes and his actual take home was 160k
2nd year, his company made more bumping him over the 250k mark, so he will pay 136.5k and his take home will be 214k.

How has this new plan hurt him? Why would he have to cut back on anything. If he can live on 160 the first year, taking home 214 the second year doesn't hurt either?

Now, back to the original point, how much does this small business get taxed on? 250k

It is a profitable business that employs 5 people. As he grows, the more people he hires, as long as he doesn't increase his own personal salary, his companies taxable income doesn't grow.

exactly ... i just don't see where so many people think raising taxes on upper 5% of america will reduce jobs . slow economy reduces jobs personal taxes... if thats the case then someone needs to get an cpa b/c obviously they are doing something wrong.

[tony]

Spread the wealth=Socialism..... Soviet Union tried that once.....

What is spreading the wealth? Paying for war? Paying for a bailout? Just curious..

[SPOOLIN]

everyone should just pay the same percentage of taxes, the government will still get more money from the people that make a shit load more money. So why put more of a tax burden on hard working Americans. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

[4dmin]

everyone should just pay the same percentage of taxes, the government will still get more money from the people that make a shit load more money. So why put more of a tax burden on hard working Americans. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

b/c a flat tax won't work (in any sense) it doesn't bring in enough revenue. what needs to be done is teir tax system like we have but we need way more regulation on massive social programs like food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, disability, etc i'm sure a large % of people on this board use such programs. if we cut the burdens of society then we can lower taxes significantly

[4dmin]

here is an interesting find.... see where we stack up. seems like america would do better w/o southeast

[joecoolfreak]

Wow...that is interesting. There are quite a few "red" states in the top 10

[BanginJimmy]

b/c a flat tax won't work (in any sense) it doesn't bring in enough revenue. what needs to be done is teir tax system like we have but we need way more regulation on massive social programs like food stamps, welfare, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, disability, etc i'm sure a large % of people on this board use such programs. if we cut the burdens of society then we can lower taxes significantly

With exception to the bolded part I agree 100%. I simply believe that unless spending is controlled, no amount of tax increase will releave our debt. Even as both canidates are preaching tax breaks and tax increases, both are proposing new spending without anything being done to decrease spending. As I have said before, unless someone can reign in congress' spending, we could ALL be looking at a 100% tax bracket and still fall further into debt.

[Deke]

So why put more of a tax burden on hard working Americans. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

You say it like only people making over 250k are hard workers. That's simply BS. Just because someone is an entrepreneur and starts, for instance, a successful dotcom business and makes 300k, does not mean they work any harder than a high school teacher making 30k a year. Granted there are plenty of people just mooching off of welfare, but there are also plenty of big businesses that have millions in revenue hoarded into some form of bogus tax shelter. I honestly don't think you can justify one over the other.

[stephen]

You say it like only people making over 250k are hard workers. That's simply BS. Just because someone is an entrepreneur and starts, for instance, a successful dotcom business and makes 300k, does not mean they work any harder than a high school teacher making 30k a year. Granted there are plenty of people just mooching off of welfare, but there are also plenty of big businesses that have millions in revenue hoarded into some form of bogus tax shelter. I honestly don't think you can justify one over the other.

excellent post!

the part i bolded is the primary reason why the "bush tax cuts" and mccain's tax proposal doesn't do sh.it for that 30k a year teacher. wages aren't increasing, government spending is increasing, and the cost of living is inflated. those "wealthy" individuals have the ability to invest their money into hedge funds, while still receiving tax cuts/breaks/shelters...and weather out the storm. that 30k a year the teacher is making, doesn't even get him/her everyday items...nevermind trying to invest their money to weather out the storm...they're living check to check. 3% (the average cost of living increase during the past 8yrs) limits that 30k a year person, more than someone making $250k. like admin said...if a 3% increase in a small business owner's taxes (who makes $250k) will tank them...then maybe they should look into a CPA.

[SPOOLIN]

everybody is a hard worker that works and cares for their well being, jesus christ you would take it to another level wouldn't you.

almost 100% of the time, someone who DOES make that much bread per year worked their ass off for it, most likely a lot harder and went through a lot more than most other people. You aren't going to get that pay by not educating yourself unless you are a discovered music or movie talent or something like that. So if you work that hard to get that pay, you are screwed because people are gonna penalize you for it. Come on man be real here. Go continue to do nothing like i guess you do and make $200,000 a year.

I know that if my boss were to start getting more stupid taxes put on him then i can forget myself ever getting a lot more pay. You guys are screwing your selves.

[Whiteboy572]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA



Wow, I bet that guy wishes he would have said so much more.

I'm sure if you are put in a position like that on national t.v. it may be hard to think of clever responses but, mine would have went like this...

"I don't want to go back to the years when I was making less than $250k, why would I want to do that? BUT, now that I am, I will be punished by you so that the poor people (the person I once was) can have my money."

I like how Obama, once again, said he will eliminate capital gains taxes on small business.

And Obama's response to the guy bringing up the flat tax idea shows that he has never read any books on the flat tax or the FAIR TAX. Obama has no idea what he is talking about.

Its amazing he is even a competition aginst anyone.. You hear about Abercon thing?

[Jaimecbr900]

All this wishy washy going back and forth is truly amuzing.

Let's see:

Let's see just which one of all of you has EVER run/owned their own business.......show me hands......

I'm going to make up an "article" about how turds come out of space and go INTO your butt crack and suddenly someone somewhere is going to use it as a "statistic" or "study"......

Bottomline is pure common sense:

If you tax the upper 5% MORE than they already have to pay, they are simply going to figure out a way to either A: hide more of their income and keep CHEATING just like the rest of us, or B: not be able to HIRE any more employees in order to maintain a certain level of income. Use you head folks. Put YOURSELF in their shoes. YOU own a successful business. YOU pay yourself $250k/yr. YOU now can afford to pay 5 employees a decent salary and STILL take home $250K/yr. Yall still with me? Ok, NOW tell that same business owner that next year he/she is going to have to pay MORE of their income to taxes because Obama said so......what do you think he/she is going to do? Are they going to be able to HIRE anyone else? If you think so, explain how when his/her costs of doing business just went UP. What's going to REALLY happen is one of the two things I mentioned above. Do you think someone who makes $250K/yr is going to run out and SELL his/her vacation home, MB, or tell little Johnny that he can't have that F1 go-kart he wanted for Christmas????? Hell to the no. They're going to figure out how to KEEP what they have and hoard the rest. Which leaves WHAT to be invested, spent, or other wise used in the general economy???? LESS is what.

So let me get this straight: A person who already pays MORE than what the average American MAKES in an entire year in taxes all year long is the same person you guys want to ask to pay yet MORE next year to cover for WHO?????? The ones that either don't pay at all or very little????? Okie dokie. Again, put yourself in their shoes. They didn't get to make $250k/yr by being stupid, right? So they're going to figure out ways to maintain their way of life and simply say "screw everybody else, including Uncle Sam". Wouldn't you? Well, those same business owners are the exact ones that HIRE folks. Think about that. HIRE FOLKS. So what do you think is going to happen when they DON'T HIRE FOLKS???? Now, factor in the FACT that we are in deep caca in just about every single segment of the job market. Hell, Pepsi......multi BILLION dollar PEPSI is laying people off by the hundreds right now.......so what do you think is going to happen to small businesses that aren't doing as much business as they once were AND you want to tax the owners on top of that MORE??????? Yall can't be that dumb, right?


This is not a math equation. It is a common sense equation. You take out the top wage earners and top tax payers and all you have left is the bottom 95% of people that pay little to no taxes. So you're left with what? No companies hiring, no companies making profits to possibly invest INTO the shitty economy, and you're left with folks that just hold their hands out.......GREAT UTOPIA.

BTW, 99% of business owners don't own a business with any intentions of ever selling it, so Capital Gains is a big BS marketing ploy. They pay NO Capital gains now, and 99.9% EVER do. So that's like giving an Eskimo a discount on ICE......pffft, there's FREE ICE all around them, right?.....same thing here. Matter of fact, small businesses (especially right now) are more likely to go UNDER all by themselves due to the market conditions than they are to be "bought" by someone else. Again, look at the realistic side and common sense side of things. Why would ANYONE buy a failing business? Why would anyone sell a productive business? The REAL side of life is that if you are making money, especially now when everybody is losing money, then you are more than likely going to stay right where you are keep making money. If you are like 90% of everyone else losing money hand over fist......just what the hell do YOU have to offer anyone that's worthy of buying???? It's easier for someone like that to just ride it out or file for bankruptcy on the whole damn thing. Why would you sell your business for pennies on the dollar and STILL KEEP debts you don't have money to pay off????

People need to use their heads and think about things. If none of you have ever owned your own business and paid the gov't thousands in taxes every single quarter or sat down to balance a business account to see where all your money is going.......then quite frankly you need to STFU and quit talking like you "know" what's going to happen when Obama starts taxing the shit out of business owners because you really have no clue.


BTW, the Fair Tax argument is really no argument. How can anyone that has really thought about it ever think it won't net more revenue? Think about your own tax returns. How many times did YOU CHEAT on your own taxes to get a bigger return or less to pay????? You think you're the only one doing that? Ummm, no. So that's just the people that are actually PAYING anything. Now, factor in all the millions that PAY nothing already. Now, look at how much revenue you would have just out of those people that DON'T PAY at all now that can't get around paying something anymore. That alone adds up to billions I bet. Now, just think about those people making decent money that suddenly can either buy more or invest more because they take home 100% of their check.......how many BILLIONS do you think that adds to be????


Yall are all nuts.

[jwrape]

You say it like only people making over 250k are hard workers. That's simply BS. Just because someone is an entrepreneur and starts, for instance, a successful dotcom business and makes 300k, does not mean they work any harder than a high school teacher making 30k a year. Granted there are plenty of people just mooching off of welfare, but there are also plenty of big businesses that have millions in revenue hoarded into some form of bogus tax shelter. I honestly don't think you can justify one over the other.

Physically harder, maybe not, but being that we are in a "free" country, if I think of an idea that makes me a fortune(whether or not I have to slave over it or not) and you don't, I don't believe I should have to pay extra taxes to help you live better(that's socialism). That's not what America was built on, that's not what it means to be "free"...

[joecoolfreak]

All this wishy washy going back and forth is truly amuzing.

Let's see:

Let's see just which one of all of you has EVER run/owned their own business.......show me hands......

I have. I also currently work for a small S corp that certainly falls into the businesses in question.

I'm going to make up an "article" about how turds come out of space and go INTO your butt crack and suddenly someone somewhere is going to use it as a "statistic" or "study"......

Bottomline is pure common sense:

If you tax the upper 5% MORE than they already have to pay, they are simply going to figure out a way to either A: hide more of their income and keep CHEATING just like the rest of us, or B: not be able to HIRE any more employees in order to maintain a certain level of income. Use you head folks. Put YOURSELF in their shoes. YOU own a successful business. YOU pay yourself $250k/yr. YOU now can afford to pay 5 employees a decent salary and STILL take home $250K/yr. Yall still with me? Ok, NOW tell that same business owner that next year he/she is going to have to pay MORE of their income to taxes because Obama said so......what do you think he/she is going to do? Are they going to be able to HIRE anyone else? If you think so, explain how when his/her costs of doing business just went UP. What's going to REALLY happen is one of the two things I mentioned above. Do you think someone who makes $250K/yr is going to run out and SELL his/her vacation home, MB, or tell little Johnny that he can't have that F1 go-kart he wanted for Christmas????? Hell to the no. They're going to figure out how to KEEP what they have and hoard the rest. Which leaves WHAT to be invested, spent, or other wise used in the general economy???? LESS is what.

I can agree to that to some extent, but let's turn that same situation around. What happens if you reduce the tax load on that same person. Are they going to hire more people? NO. Are they going to invest more in the business or economy? NO. They are going to do the same think you think they are going to do. They are going to "hoard" the extra money that they get to use your own words.

So let me get this straight: A person who already pays MORE than what the average American MAKES in an entire year in taxes all year long is the same person you guys want to ask to pay yet MORE next year to cover for WHO?????? The ones that either don't pay at all or very little????? Okie dokie. Again, put yourself in their shoes. They didn't get to make $250k/yr by being stupid, right? So they're going to figure out ways to maintain their way of life and simply say "screw everybody else, including Uncle Sam". Wouldn't you? Well, those same business owners are the exact ones that HIRE folks. Think about that. HIRE FOLKS. So what do you think is going to happen when they DON'T HIRE FOLKS???? Now, factor in the FACT that we are in deep caca in just about every single segment of the job market. Hell, Pepsi......multi BILLION dollar PEPSI is laying people off by the hundreds right now.......so what do you think is going to happen to small businesses that aren't doing as much business as they once were AND you want to tax the owners on top of that MORE??????? Yall can't be that dumb, right?

I really do have a problem with this trickle down supply side of thinking. If it's bad for the big guys, then it's worse for the little guys. The worse it gets for the little guys, the worse they make it for the big guys. If the little guy is paying so much of his income that he can't afford to pay bills, he isn't going out to buy pepsi. That is why pepsi is doing poorly in the first place. If you raise the taxes on the people that CAN afford to still pay their bills, they don't go hungry. They don't stop enjoying their lifestyle. They just don't keep getting richer as quickly. PLEASE, stop assuming that if we give breaks to the big guys, they will pass on the benifits to the small guys. It has never happened, and never will.

This is not a math equation. It is a common sense equation. You take out the top wage earners and top tax payers and all you have left is the bottom 95% of people that pay little to no taxes. So you're left with what? No companies hiring, no companies making profits to possibly invest INTO the shitty economy, and you're left with folks that just hold their hands out.......GREAT UTOPIA.

Nobody is talking about giving the tax money from the rich to the poor here. That is a very unfair assumption. We don't have enough money coming into the government to pay for roads, public education. Hell, we don't even make enough to pay the interest only on our national debt, much less pay anything down. This is not weath redistribution. This is a simple fact that we have spent more than we have and now somebody has to pay the bill. There is only one side that has enough money to pay the bill, so guess who gets stuck with it? Is it fair? NO. Is there another way. No again.

BTW, 99% of business owners don't own a business with any intentions of ever selling it, so Capital Gains is a big BS marketing ploy. They pay NO Capital gains now, and 99.9% EVER do. So that's like giving an Eskimo a discount on ICE......pffft, there's FREE ICE all around them, right?.....same thing here. Matter of fact, small businesses (especially right now) are more likely to go UNDER all by themselves due to the market conditions than they are to be "bought" by someone else. Again, look at the realistic side and common sense side of things. Why would ANYONE buy a failing business? Why would anyone sell a productive business? The REAL side of life is that if you are making money, especially now when everybody is losing money, then you are more than likely going to stay right where you are keep making money. If you are like 90% of everyone else losing money hand over fist......just what the hell do YOU have to offer anyone that's worthy of buying???? It's easier for someone like that to just ride it out or file for bankruptcy on the whole damn thing. Why would you sell your business for pennies on the dollar and STILL KEEP debts you don't have money to pay off????

Now I would have to ask you...have you ever bought, owned, or started your own business? I don't know where you got the statistical numbers on this one, but EVERYONE I know who has ever started or bought their own business did so with the intention of selling that business for a profit. Are there some family owned businesses that are trying to create a legacy for their children? Sure. Are they the majority? Absolutely not, much more so the minority. That was the entire Dot Com model. Produce a great product from startup and sell as soon as the company had potential to turn a great profit and keep going. Many small businesses are traded just like stocks.

People need to use their heads and think about things. If none of you have ever owned your own business and paid the gov't thousands in taxes every single quarter or sat down to balance a business account to see where all your money is going.......then quite frankly you need to STFU and quit talking like you "know" what's going to happen when Obama starts taxing the shit out of business owners because you really have no clue.

Again, I have been in this boat, so won't really address this one.

BTW, the Fair Tax argument is really no argument. How can anyone that has really thought about it ever think it won't net more revenue? Think about your own tax returns. How many times did YOU CHEAT on your own taxes to get a bigger return or less to pay????? You think you're the only one doing that? Ummm, no. So that's just the people that are actually PAYING anything. Now, factor in all the millions that PAY nothing already. Now, look at how much revenue you would have just out of those people that DON'T PAY at all now that can't get around paying something anymore. That alone adds up to billions I bet. Now, just think about those people making decent money that suddenly can either buy more or invest more because they take home 100% of their check.......how many BILLIONS do you think that adds to be????

To be completly honest, I agree with almost all aspects of the Fair Tax proposals. The one thing that does worry me is that with America's obsession with spending more than their means(being in credit), that the tax itself will make things less affordable simply because they will be paying finance charges on so many taxes that they aren't now. It doesn't change the revenue standpoint, but might not be so easy to handle economically for your average taxpayer. That can certainly be attributed to the stupidity of our culture, but I will leave that for another day.

Yall are all nuts.

The feeling is quite mutual sometimes ;-)

[4dmin]

it doesn't matter if you've owned your own business or not before... owning a business doesn't make you and economics guru... i'll post up the previously used chart...

again we are talking about Joe who makes 250k which will fall into the 225-600k range... from what i see it is a wash... he will see no real tax change.




i know many on the right like to use the stance of well jobs will be cut...

lets do a simple break down....

250,000 x .35 = 87500
250,000 x .40 = 100000 (i used a +5% change in taxes just for example)
-------------------------
difference of above: 12,500 \ 52 weeks = 240 \ 40 hours = 6$ an hour

6$ an hour employee ... now lets take everything into perspective we are just banking on Joe's Company has a growth rate of 0%




i've attached the tax brackets for your reference....

[Jaimecbr900]

I have. I also currently work for a small S corp that certainly falls into the businesses in question.

Ok, then add up how much you spend on capital gains tax every year.......how much? ZERO. So how is this "tax cut" going to help YOU?

I can agree to that to some extent, but let's turn that same situation around. What happens if you reduce the tax load on that same person. Are they going to hire more people? NO. Are they going to invest more in the business or economy? NO. They are going to do the same think you think they are going to do. They are going to "hoard" the extra money that they get to use your own words.

As much as everyone hates to admit it, it's the business owners that EMPLOY everyone else. That's the bottom line. So if you think for a minute that if you tax those folks MORE it's some how going to have a Peter Pan effect on the "little guys" then you're sadly mistaken. The vast majority, some have put it as high as 70% of all of American workers, pay the bottom 1/3 of ALL taxes IF that much. So in what economic theory does it make sense that those that not only EMPLOY anyone and pay 70+% of ALL the taxes are going to some how pay those taxes happily w/o passing them down to someone else, yall are all smoking crack.

I really do have a problem with this trickle down supply side of thinking. If it's bad for the big guys, then it's worse for the little guys. The worse it gets for the little guys, the worse they make it for the big guys. If the little guy is paying so much of his income that he can't afford to pay bills, he isn't going out to buy pepsi. That is why pepsi is doing poorly in the first place. If you raise the taxes on the people that CAN afford to still pay their bills, they don't go hungry. They don't stop enjoying their lifestyle. They just don't keep getting richer as quickly. PLEASE, stop assuming that if we give breaks to the big guys, they will pass on the benifits to the small guys. It has never happened, and never will.

It's not trickle down, it's fact. Wasn't this the same idea behind the "stimulus" check? To inject the economy with more money? Well, how come that was such a marvelous idea, yet noone can take it a step further and think about what happens when businesses thrive and EMPLOY more people.....more spendable money for people to spend frivolously just like in previous times. So instead of penalizing business owners for doing well, give them incentives to keep on doing well and employing more people and paying more taxes in doing so. Everyone would then have more cash to spend and thereby lifting up a fallen economy. The economic problem we have now is partly due to people not having or not spending money.

Nobody is talking about giving the tax money from the rich to the poor here. That is a very unfair assumption. We don't have enough money coming into the government to pay for roads, public education. Hell, we don't even make enough to pay the interest only on our national debt, much less pay anything down. This is not weath redistribution. This is a simple fact that we have spent more than we have and now somebody has to pay the bill. There is only one side that has enough money to pay the bill, so guess who gets stuck with it? Is it fair? NO. Is there another way. No again.

Really? Talk to your boy Obama. In the very video here in this thread he ADMITS that he is "raising taxes to spread some of the wealth around". I belive it's around the 4:30 mark, but don't quote me on that. I heard it clear as a bell, as did millions of others that have seen this. This is where all the flack and the attempt of the Obama camp to distance themselves from this video. HE SAID IT. It wasn't photoshopped in, nor dubbed in. HE SAID IT.

Now I would have to ask you...have you ever bought, owned, or started your own business? I don't know where you got the statistical numbers on this one, but EVERYONE I know who has ever started or bought their own business did so with the intention of selling that business for a profit. Are there some family owned businesses that are trying to create a legacy for their children? Sure. Are they the majority? Absolutely not, much more so the minority. That was the entire Dot Com model. Produce a great product from startup and sell as soon as the company had potential to turn a great profit and keep going. Many small businesses are traded just like stocks.

#1. Yes I have. I have and still do own businesses.
#2. I've yet to meet a single business owner, and I know a million, that started a business with the sole purpose of selling out. It doesn't happen that way. The way it REALLY happens is that you create a successful business and MAYBE your competitor buys you out, but that's an outside chance. Yes, people do sell out and make a profit. But it's not because they set out to do that like a stock or savings account. It's more likely because some Joe Schmo competitor decided one day to make him/her an offer and they took it. But I promise you that as a business owner who is making money, the possibility of selling it and starting over is not in the fore front of their mind.

To be completly honest, I agree with almost all aspects of the Fair Tax proposals. The one thing that does worry me is that with America's obsession with spending more than their means(being in credit), that the tax itself will make things less affordable simply because they will be paying finance charges on so many taxes that they aren't now. It doesn't change the revenue standpoint, but might not be so easy to handle economically for your average taxpayer. That can certainly be attributed to the stupidity of our culture, but I will leave that for another day.

I don't follow where you're getting "paying taxes on finance charges"?

[Jaimecbr900]

it doesn't matter if you've owned your own business or not before... owning a business doesn't make you and economics guru... i'll post up the previously used chart...

again we are talking about Joe who makes 250k which will fall into the 225-600k range... from what i see it is a wash... he will see no real tax change.




i know many on the right like to use the stance of well jobs will be cut...

lets do a simple break down....

250,000 x .35 = 87500
250,000 x .40 = 100000 (i used a +5% change in taxes just for example)
-------------------------
difference of above: 12,500 \ 52 weeks = 240 \ 40 hours = 6$ an hour

6$ an hour employee ... now lets take everything into perspective we are just banking on Joe's Company has a growth rate of 0%




i've attached the tax brackets for your reference....

Please post the SOURCE of these charts.

BTW, you're fixing to fall into this very category. How would you feel if I walked up to you and said that since you and Kate make a ton of money that you HAVE TO give me the difference from what you were making before to what you're making now???? Forget the fact that Kate put her blood, sweat, and tears into her education to EARN that money. Forget that you had to put up with a lot of BS to get where you are today. Forget that Kate gave up having fun and getting drunk with me and you while she studied to get her degree. Forget that you have expenses, like student loans to pay back, that you are paying. Forget all that. I need it more than you do, so I want it, and I should get it because you guys make more than most. Tell me on what planet that is fair or makes sense.

[Maniacc]

[jwrape]

Please post the SOURCE of these charts.

BTW, you're fixing to fall into this very category. How would you feel if I walked up to you and said that since you and Kate make a ton of money that you HAVE TO give me the difference from what you were making before to what you're making now???? Forget the fact that Kate put her blood, sweat, and tears into her education to EARN that money. Forget that you had to put up with a lot of BS to get where you are today. Forget that Kate gave up having fun and getting drunk with me and you while she studied to get her degree. Forget that you have expenses, like student loans to pay back, that you are paying. Forget all that. I need it more than you do, so I want it, and I should get it because you guys make more than most. Tell me on what planet that is fair or makes sense.

agreed^

[joecoolfreak]

Ok, then add up how much you spend on capital gains tax every year.......how much? ZERO. So how is this "tax cut" going to help YOU?

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.

As much as everyone hates to admit it, it's the business owners that EMPLOY everyone else. That's the bottom line. So if you think for a minute that if you tax those folks MORE it's some how going to have a Peter Pan effect on the "little guys" then you're sadly mistaken. The vast majority, some have put it as high as 70% of all of American workers, pay the bottom 1/3 of ALL taxes IF that much. So in what economic theory does it make sense that those that not only EMPLOY anyone and pay 70+% of ALL the taxes are going to some how pay those taxes happily w/o passing them down to someone else, yall are all smoking crack.

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.

It's not trickle down, it's fact. Wasn't this the same idea behind the "stimulus" check? To inject the economy with more money? Well, how come that was such a marvelous idea, yet noone can take it a step further and think about what happens when businesses thrive and EMPLOY more people.....more spendable money for people to spend frivolously just like in previous times. So instead of penalizing business owners for doing well, give them incentives to keep on doing well and employing more people and paying more taxes in doing so. Everyone would then have more cash to spend and thereby lifting up a fallen economy. The economic problem we have now is partly due to people not having or not spending money.

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?

Really? Talk to your boy Obama. In the very video here in this thread he ADMITS that he is "raising taxes to spread some of the wealth around". I belive it's around the 4:30 mark, but don't quote me on that. I heard it clear as a bell, as did millions of others that have seen this. This is where all the flack and the attempt of the Obama camp to distance themselves from this video. HE SAID IT. It wasn't photoshopped in, nor dubbed in. HE SAID IT.

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.

#1. Yes I have. I have and still do own businesses.
#2. I've yet to meet a single business owner, and I know a million, that started a business with the sole purpose of selling out. It doesn't happen that way. The way it REALLY happens is that you create a successful business and MAYBE your competitor buys you out, but that's an outside chance. Yes, people do sell out and make a profit. But it's not because they set out to do that like a stock or savings account. It's more likely because some Joe Schmo competitor decided one day to make him/her an offer and they took it. But I promise you that as a business owner who is making money, the possibility of selling it and starting over is not in the fore front of their mind.

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.

I don't follow where you're getting "paying taxes on finance charges"?

I am not saying that they will be paying taxes on finance charges, but instead that they will be paying finance charges on taxes. If this doesn't clarify the point, let me know and I will elaborate.

[BanginJimmy]

cutting capital gains is good for the majority of Ameicans. Remember that all those 401k's, mutual funds, and IRAs that people use for retirement have their profits taxed now. How much less will they have in those accounts if the govt swipes even more of the interest that they already do?