Skip navigation

Obama's 3-Point Plan to Fix Everything

or Register to post new content in the forum

53 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 20, 2009 1:48 pm

I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then. 

As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush’s $500 tax “rebate” (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don’t get me started on Obama…the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today.

But then, I don’t know…maybe it has always been. 

Dec 20, 2009 2:20 pm

[[email protected]] I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then. As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush’s $500 tax “rebate” (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don’t get me started on Obama…the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today. But then, I don’t know…maybe it has always been.

[/quote]



Wonder if people find it comical to listen to a failure talk about this business. Oooooooooooooo

Dec 20, 2009 4:00 pm

[[email protected]] [[email protected]] I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then.  As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush’s $500 tax “rebate” (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don’t get me started on Obama…the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today. But then, I don’t know…maybe it has always been. 

[/quote]



Wonder if people find it comical to listen to a failure talk about this business. Oooooooooooooo[/quote]

Failure??? …my December will be more than double what I made in my 15 weeks at Jones.
Just had to find my rhythm.

Dec 21, 2009 8:40 pm

[quote=Primo][quote=Billy Mays] if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it…smoke and mirrors again.

Sorry, couldn't find anything on Wikipedia, hope this helps. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200   and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase. Might have something to do with spending.  Yep, pretty sure that is it.   To summarize, tax cuts led to higher tax receipts, yet spending put us further into debt.   you don't know what you are talking about. It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding.  You say less taxes can't mean higher receipts, that doesn't make sense.   What you don't get is  less taxes means individuals have the ability to spend the money, which they do far more effeciently than the government.  The additional dollars available due to lower taxes lead to economic growth, which, you guessed it, increases tax receipts.  This isn't a new concept, you might want to look into it.  [/quote] [/quote]   if you graph that tax receipts data, you will see that nothing was accomplished - it's a linear relationship. smoke & mirrors.
Dec 21, 2009 9:11 pm

What would tax cuts do for my business? I’d hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.

  What will borrowing and printing money do for my personal situation? Increase taxes.   Tax increases motivate me to cut expenses and personal spending, decrease costs, pay less in taxes.   It will be really interesting when the 70% of the stimulus money that went to my state, used for propping up government jobs and welfare, runs out.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU   But who knows for sure, we'll see how your Keynesian  experiment plays out. Job creation is not smoke and mirrors when you're unemployed, continued funding of an oversized government during a recession just might be from the point of view of the folks who will someday be creating the real jobs.   Nick Murray said something like, talking to clients about investing is not about graphs and charts, but comes from someplace in the heart.   Americans, in their hearts, know it is wrong for the government to increase taxing and spending, while taxpayers are forced to make greater sacrifices.   It's just plain unAmerican.    
Dec 22, 2009 12:09 am

[quote=Billy Mays][quote=Primo][quote=Billy Mays] if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it…smoke and mirrors again.

Sorry, couldn't find anything on Wikipedia, hope this helps. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200   and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase. Might have something to do with spending.  Yep, pretty sure that is it.   To summarize, tax cuts led to higher tax receipts, yet spending put us further into debt.   you don't know what you are talking about. It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding.  You say less taxes can't mean higher receipts, that doesn't make sense.   What you don't get is  less taxes means individuals have the ability to spend the money, which they do far more effeciently than the government.  The additional dollars available due to lower taxes lead to economic growth, which, you guessed it, increases tax receipts.  This isn't a new concept, you might want to look into it.  [/quote] [/quote]   if you graph that tax receipts data, you will see that nothing was accomplished - it's a linear relationship. smoke & mirrors. [/quote]     Bush cut taxes.  Tax receipts went up.  Simple fact.  You can deny it all day long and use terms like "smoke and mirrors" all you want, it doesn't change the facts.  I suspect you use terms like "smoke and mirrors" simply because the data did not fit your version of reality.  I guess it's easier than offering a counter argument.  Typical liberal BS.
Dec 22, 2009 2:01 am

[quote=Milyunair]What would tax cuts do for my business? I’d hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.

 [/quote]

Isn't the exact opposite true.

If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible.

If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.



Dec 22, 2009 2:11 am

[[email protected]] [quote=Milyunair]What would tax cuts do for my business? I’d hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.

 [/quote]

Isn't the exact opposite true.

If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible.

If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.



[/quote]     ...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.
Dec 22, 2009 2:52 am

[quote=Primo][[email protected]] [quote=Milyunair]What would tax cuts do for my business? I’d hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.

 [/quote]
Isn't the exact opposite true.
If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible.
If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone. [/quote]  
...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.[/quote]

What you've described is your payout of either $30.5k or $42.5k which can be spent on porsches, country club dues or vacations.

Another option is to take the full $50k you've made and invest it further in your business or even in another business. Investment is always tax-free. It's only when you cash out to buy goods and services that you have to pay taxes. 

Dec 22, 2009 3:50 am

[[email protected]] [quote=Primo][[email protected]] [quote=Milyunair]What would tax cuts do for my business? I’d hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.

 [/quote]
Isn't the exact opposite true.
If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible.
If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone. [/quote]  
...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.[/quote]

What you've described is your payout of either $30.5k or $42.5k which can be spent on porsches, country club dues or vacations.

Another option is to take the full $50k you've made and invest it further in your business or even in another business. Investment is always tax-free. It's only when you cash out to buy goods and services that you have to pay taxes. 

[/quote]     Isn't the point of investment to get a return?  All investments involve a risk/reward balance, if you increase the possible reward, people are more willing to take the risk associated.
Dec 22, 2009 3:59 am

Jones, it’s not all country clubs and Porshes. The cost of education comes from after tax dollars. So does the formation of capital. A lot of guys my age are saying, why bother to hire Jr., it’s not worth the trouble when total taxes ( payroll, state, federal, SS, property, unemployment, and now, my portion of the Medicaid tax for the taxpayers of, what is it, Nebraska?) exceeds one-half of gross revenues minus expenses. 

  When you make more money, you don't necessarily go out and join another country club. Whatever. I'm getting to the point where I don't care if people don't understand wealth and job creation.
Dec 22, 2009 1:40 pm

$350,000/year is a good income. When you are making that kind of cake, I’m sure you aren’t worrying about paying for kids education.

As for job creation, I think the argument that it spurs job creation is counter-intuitive just because employees are deductible. I believe you would be more inclined to hire a junior with a tax increase.

Another point I could make is that marginal tax rates help promote capital expenditures. If you know you are approaching $400k for a year; you might be more inclined to purchase a new computer network or a new company car (which you will use more for personal use but still take the deduction). 

I think the better argument is that tax reductions lead to more
investment, in general, which has an overall positive effect. I believe
this might be true. I only question it because I believe a business
owner can invest more efficiently in their own business.

Dec 22, 2009 7:04 pm

You can only invest and write off so much. The way you keep track in business is at your personal balance sheet.

We all know small business clients who make the mistake of keeping too much of their net worth in the business. Investing in your own business is more efficient up to a certain point, it is also more risky.   If you take more risk, and taxes on the net go up with the risk, there's a tradeoff.   You still sound like one of these guys who thinks the definitiion of wealthy is someone whom makes more than $200,000. It feels like you're rubbing your hands together, coming with ideas on how governnent can allocate the money.   $350k is a nice income, the difference between $300,000 and $200,000 is huge, I'm talking more like the latter number in terms of disincentives to take more risk and create jobs. Maybe you're "there' at $350, there are a lot of small businesses that could use a stronger tax incentive to grow to that number.   But even $350 ain't that much, Obama almost comes across like you're greedy if you net $350. That's just wrong.   If I have more incentive to form capital outside my core business, I'm in a better position to protect my cash flow inside and outside the business (in my personal life).   I can leverage some of that cash to borrow more money (outside the business) to create new ventures in new jobs. Successful small business owners don't always take the money from business number one and just put it in the broad stock and bond markets.   Socialist tax increases and the growth of government and large corporations (which have at least some money rebated from the public economy, through direct investment and the result of lobbying, which provideds favorable business policy) as an ever larger percentage of the total economy, are slowly undermining the incentive for small business innovation and risk-taking.
Dec 22, 2009 7:30 pm

Anyway, I’m not really trying to prove anything. I’m probably not the only person in America who thinks it’s not worth it to work harder and take more risk to have the last dollars of “profit” (revenues net of expenses) taxed at over fifty percent.

  Maybe some other folks who are in position to create jobs for young people feel the same way. Maybe I'm just lazy and want to enjoy life now.   But the idea of working harder with more risk and stress, and paying more and more taxes to a government that prints and spends money and is growing as a percent of GDP, where public jobs with their pensions are looking more attractive than private jobs, with bailouts for unions and tax credits and handouts for people who are making just a little less money than a lot of small business owners, these thoughts and perspectives speak to the graphs and charts of Billy and company.   I would like to think that folks who earn a living managing other people's capital "kinda" appreciate what I'm talking about here.
Dec 22, 2009 8:29 pm

Please don’t get me wrong, I am undecided on this one. I don’t disagree with any of your points, however, there are creative ways around most of them.

I will support anything that I believe will be better for our economy. I’m not yet convinced that tax breaks for people making over $350k/year is best.

And, as a person who is trying to earn a living managing other
people’s capital, I believe much more effort needs to be put into reducing government spending than reducing tax rates. I do agree with Billy when he said where were the tea parties in '05. If these people really believed in good fiscal policy, they should have come out then. Everything else Billy posted is crap.
Dec 22, 2009 8:44 pm

Yeah. It’s not like I’m making that much money. ( Not anywhere near $350).

  I don't think only  $350 plus  is at risk - with the health care bill, everyone will pay. ( Of the half of folks who pay taxes.)   $150,000 seems like a lot of money when you're making 80, and the mentality in America is to redistribute wealth. At $150,000, you begin to push past personal needs ( cash reserve, college, paying 12k for your own health care, having a little fun) to capital formation.   Increasing taxes at $150,000, ( I promise you, deductions are going away for small business owners at this level, health insurance premiums are going up, college costs are going up, state and local taxes are going up, etc.) is not a good idea. It reduces the incentive for a small business to hire. It discourages risk.   But the mentality in America has shifted. A lot of folks who work for companies like Intel, making $150,000 or $175,000, don't really mind paying taxes. They are getting hosed.   I would say, much of the "worry" of folks like me is what's coming, not the status quo. If you have been around for many decades, you know that what's happening is not good. Maybe you're diving for the exits, maybe you're just lying low and trying to figure how to position yourself, maybe you're reexamining your lifestyle and coming up with new strategies.   If you're a young guy and you're kinda wishy washy about this stuff, and paying attention to the importance of what the tea parties were in '05, that makes me nervous. I hope you understand that the people who are going to be creating the jobs that aren't government and are not big corporations (both are corrupt) are probably making an uncomfortable amount of money, for you, but they aren't running out and buying more golf club memberships and new cars, either.   We all got here through wealth creation, and the nature of private vs. public  investment capital itself is changing. It's interesting, but I don't think many people understand it.   Bottom line, it has become PC to be jealous of people who seem to be making a lot of money. I'm sure you can appreciate that whether you are trading on a $3,500,000 account or $350,000 or $35,000, it's just somebody else's money. It doesn't mean anything in of itself.   But you have a new mentality, where a group of people is standing in the corner, ready to solve all of the world's problems, with somebody else's money, in the name of compassion. Just as a big pot of money can corrupt the owner, so can a handout.   The irony is, a whole generation of baby boomers never bothered to save, so their interest in big government is clear.   What is not clear is why anyone under the age of fourty or fifty  would go along with the redistribution of wealth. I don't get it.   If I'm wealthy and "liberal" and don't mind wealth redistribution through taxes ( which comes from the folks who are in the process of forming capital, not the ones that already have it) - that seems cold.   If I'm poor and just want to be taken care of, I guess I understand that point of view.   The people in the middle - boy, you'd think we gotta stick together. Honestly, I'm inclined to lower my costs and risks and reduce my lifestyle. Big storm coming.   Reduced to an essence, you can strive to be a pensioned pilot who trades bonds and charity gossip with the monied literati or you can carry a gun in your glovebox and a Rolex on your wrist and sell guaranteed contracts. The irony thickens as the options narrow, all in the shadow of a growing public industrial economy that strangles the common man who aspires to create "wealth".   Thus begins a tea party in the spirit of our ancestors.
Dec 23, 2009 1:21 am

I agree we are seeing a backlash against wealthier individuals…mostly because they are perceived to be the cause of our economic collapse. I’m sure this will pass as soon as the lines get shorter at the soup kitchens.

The health care issue is something that has to get done before it bankrupts social security. I’m glad to see something getting done (whether what gets done is good or bad, we’ll have to wait and see). The republican party had 6-8 years to put forth their plans and all they did was pass medicare bills with no way to fund them (except more borrowing).

I agree there has been a progressive favoritism towards large conglomerates over small businesses - I believe this is very bad. 

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation…the tea party “movement” of today is just a bunch of sore losers.

To me, Tea Party Activist = Greenpeace Activist. I wouldn’t associate with either.

I am a solid supporter of private investment over public investment. As I’ve mentioned before, I believe we should have all taxes (any income source that supports the government - including parking
meters/tickets - you get the point); all government spending should be
capped at 25% of GDP. It is currently about 55%; I believe this is bad. 

Dec 23, 2009 1:55 am

Yep.

  This article is worth investing a little time.   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read     
Dec 24, 2009 4:12 am

[quote=Milyunair]Yep.

This article is worth investing a little time. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read  [/quote]

I'm sorry, but that reads like a fox news rant. Sure, they hit all the talking points, but no real substance. Here's my essay...this is worth investing a little time:

Health care costs have risen by 7% per year for the past 8 years. Rising health care costs are crippling small businesses. During the years 2000-2008, when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency they accomplished nothing to curb these increases.

I don't know if Obama will succeed, but I'm glad he is trying. It needs to be done.

Dec 24, 2009 4:33 am

I believe that national healthcare is a RIGHT of every citizen. I consider it a right for two reasons. 1. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated whether they can pay or not. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath to care for others, it’s a very moving ceremony. So we all get healthcare one way or another right now. But the current system is ripe with inefficiencies. 2. The most cost effective way to pay for healthcare is for everyone to be in the same risk pool and share costs.

We don’t have a health insurance system now, just a hodge podge that evolved over time with little rhyme or reason. Private insurance has been an expensive disaster. If we model our system on France or Denmark we will be much better off. No matter what, healthcare will be a good 17% of GNP going forward.