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 24, 2009 4:59 am

Just for the record, I believe in reasonable health care reform. There should be a basic level of coverage for all, and I don’t like paying ten thousand bucks a year for my “insurance”, which already subsidizes those indigent emergency room visits.

  Okay guys, I don't support the process or the bill. This is your baby. You can take all of the credit and responsibility going forward. Enjoy your victory. Congratulations for forcing this partisan solution on the masses.   Time for Americans to move on.
Dec 24, 2009 3:31 pm

well, most o’ ya voted fo’ dis here community organizer.
Him an’ Hilliary tried ta top each other on healthcare, an’ dis here iz what we’s git.

If only Norm Coleman got uh few breaks, dis here bill would never gots seen da light o’ day

Ya’ll is mad stupid.

Dec 24, 2009 4:22 pm
[email protected]:

$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.

  Still, you've got this pretty much backwards.   Let's assume that you make $300,000 and are paying $100,000 in taxes and taking home $200,000.  If taxes go up and you are now paying $150,000 in taxes and taking home $150,000, the last thing that you are going to do is hire an employee.   You start to get worried about paying your own bills.    Imagine things go in the other direction and your after tax pay goes from $150,000 to $200,000.  You now have $50,000 "extra" that your family isn't used to spending.  That money can be reinvested in your business to try to make more money.   Let's use an extreme example.  Taxes are very low for incomes of below $300,000 and very high for incomes above $300,000.  You make $300,000.  Would you hire someone?  The answer should be "no".  There is no benefit.  If you don't recoup the expense, the hiring costs you money.  If hiring someone helps you make money, it doesn't give you much benefit because of the higher taxes.  Instead, you would simply choose to work less because high taxes take away one's incentive to make more money. 
Dec 24, 2009 4:50 pm

Tell me, you math wizards, how would your tax go from 100k to 150k, when the tax rate only goes from 35% to 38%? And that’s the top marginal rate. The super rich own 80% of the country’s assets. They dont pay 35%. Stop making yourselves victims here. You are not in their league. And even Warren Buffet says they should pay more tax.

Dec 24, 2009 5:01 pm

Listen, “Mr. I’m the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50’s”, the post isn’t about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.

  The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.    
Dec 24, 2009 6:24 pm

[quote=anonymous] Listen, “Mr. I’m the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50’s”, the post isn’t about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.



The Super rich don’t pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income. It’s not about victimization. It’s about reality. I’m a small business owner. I can’t/won’t hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says? He doesn’t care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.



[/quote]



Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50’s when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.
Dec 24, 2009 6:32 pm

[quote=52new] [quote=anonymous] Listen, “Mr. I’m the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50’s”, the post isn’t about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.

 
The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.
 
 [/quote]

Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50's when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.[/quote]   A high marginal tax rate on individual incomes wouldn't stop a corporation from hiring someone.   It would stop an individual from taking the risk needed to earn more money with no chance of reward. 
Dec 24, 2009 8:23 pm

Well guys, if taxes were reasonable and I was motivated and hiring and Anonymous was looking, I think he would be the best qualified candidate in terms of understanding the economic minds of my small business owner clients.

This discussion shows what's wrong with America. I've been to Buffet's annual meeting, owned BRK B, and respect the man, but if you've been reading the business news at all, you know he's in bed with the big boys now. Bad example of pull - yourself -up - by - your  - own - bootstraps.
Dec 24, 2009 8:47 pm

[quote=52new] [quote=anonymous] Listen, “Mr. I’m the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50’s”, the post isn’t about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.

 

The Super rich don’t pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It’s not about victimization.  It’s about reality.  I’m a small business owner.  I can’t/won’t hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn’t care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.

 

 [/quote]



Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50’s when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.[/quote]

Hey 52, are you by chance meletio?  He was at least funny.
Dec 24, 2009 9:13 pm
52new:

Tell me, you math wizards, how would your tax go from 100k to 150k, when the tax rate only goes from 35% to 38%? And that’s the top marginal rate. The super rich own 80% of the country’s assets. They dont pay 35%. Stop making yourselves victims here. You are not in their league. And even Warren Buffet says they should pay more tax.

  Then why doesn't he?  You can overpay your taxes, in fact the IRS has an account set up to receive such funds.  So when Buffet or Obama or whoever else says the "rich" need to pay their fair share, I say you first, add some voluntary funds to your IRS check on April 15.  Of course this does not happen.  Buffet has talked about his secretary paying at a higher marginal rate than he does.  This is by HIS choice.  He pays himself in dividends to take advantage of the tax code.  If he truly felt that this was unfair, he could simply hire himself as an employee and pay himself regular income.  Buffet also thinks the death tax is a good idea.  Of course every nickel he has when he dies goes into trust.  If he truly felt the death tax was a good idea, he should subject himself to it.  
Dec 24, 2009 9:23 pm

Buffet has made fun of the idea of consumers paying professional financial advisors, like us, to help with their money. Then he talks about how the rich need to pay more taxes, while doing (special?) business with Wall Street. Buffet supported the election Chicago Wonder. His pals like Bill Gates don’t really mind us paying more taxes and having less business, either. Yeah, we should worship Warren Buffet, technology, big government, big business.

  I can't believe a few of the folks here call themselves financial advisors. Who are they advising?
Dec 28, 2009 2:38 am
anonymous:

[[email protected]]$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.

  Still, you've got this pretty much backwards.   Let's assume that you make $300,000 and are paying $100,000 in taxes and taking home $200,000.  If taxes go up and you are now paying $150,000 in taxes and taking home $150,000, the last thing that you are going to do is hire an employee.   You start to get worried about paying your own bills.    Imagine things go in the other direction and your after tax pay goes from $150,000 to $200,000.  You now have $50,000 "extra" that your family isn't used to spending.  That money can be reinvested in your business to try to make more money.   Let's use an extreme example.  Taxes are very low for incomes of below $300,000 and very high for incomes above $300,000.  You make $300,000.  Would you hire someone?  The answer should be "no".  There is no benefit.  If you don't recoup the expense, the hiring costs you money.  If hiring someone helps you make money, it doesn't give you much benefit because of the higher taxes.  Instead, you would simply choose to work less because high taxes take away one's incentive to make more money.  [/quote]
I feel like I've beaten this point to death.
Why would anyone reinvest post-tax dollars into their business??? They wouldn't.

Pre-tax dollars are what get invested into a business (and are unaffected by tax rates for most small businesses). Post tax dollars go towards personal consumption.

If you raise taxes on consumption dollars, small business owners will be more inclined to invest in their own businesses.

Please tell me where this logic is wrong?
Dec 28, 2009 1:29 pm

[[email protected]]

anonymous:

[[email protected]]$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.

  Still, you've got this pretty much backwards.   Let's assume that you make $300,000 and are paying $100,000 in taxes and taking home $200,000.  If taxes go up and you are now paying $150,000 in taxes and taking home $150,000, the last thing that you are going to do is hire an employee.   You start to get worried about paying your own bills.    Imagine things go in the other direction and your after tax pay goes from $150,000 to $200,000.  You now have $50,000 "extra" that your family isn't used to spending.  That money can be reinvested in your business to try to make more money.   Let's use an extreme example.  Taxes are very low for incomes of below $300,000 and very high for incomes above $300,000.  You make $300,000.  Would you hire someone?  The answer should be "no".  There is no benefit.  If you don't recoup the expense, the hiring costs you money.  If hiring someone helps you make money, it doesn't give you much benefit because of the higher taxes.  Instead, you would simply choose to work less because high taxes take away one's incentive to make more money.  [/quote]
I feel like I've beaten this point to death.
Why would anyone reinvest post-tax dollars into their business??? They wouldn't.

Pre-tax dollars are what get invested into a business (and are unaffected by tax rates for most small businesses). Post tax dollars go towards personal consumption.

If you raise taxes on consumption dollars, small business owners will be more inclined to invest in their own businesses.

Please tell me where this logic is wrong?
[/quote]

I actually have to agree with [email protected] here.

I don't re-invest post tax dollars in my business.

I have no problem raising taxes on consumption dollars as long as it is fair.  Just lower my income taxes.