Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by bama in chi-town:
How anyone could think that removing job creating capital from an already strapped economy is a good thing is beyond ridiculous. We need a pres that will keep taxes low and start phasing out useless gov't programs.
Ideally that would be a libertarian.




Taxes are NOT job creating capital. They are levied AFTER expenses, including salaries. One way a company can reduce their tax burden is through creating jobs. In addition, Obama's plan gives credits to businesses that create jobs.

The real issues with doing business in the US are the cost of healthcare, the cost of labor compared to someone in another country who makes a few dollars a DAY, the high cost of real estate/facilities, the constant threat of frivolous lawsuits and the high insurance costs that result. As a former executive, I have had to participate in the decisions of whether to move the business, cut staffing levels, etc. These were the factors that mattered. Taxes never once entered the picture since we had complete control over those.
I understand what you are saying and you are correct. However, when taxes are increased it takes $ out of the hands of the consumer and business owners which is ultimately, on the macro level, "job creating capital". The thing that should be asked is if that resource($)is put to better use by gov't or by the private sector? My vote goes with the private sector because the private sector has an incentive(profit) to use it efficiently whereas the gov't has no such incentive.
But it's not just "business taxes" that will increase -- those increases will also be applied to my payroll tax before it is over with and that comes out of MY pocket -- not my companies. Also, the trickle-down effect will lead to higher gas prices, food prices and other consumer goods.

I'll tell you what is PATRIOTIC -- manage the money we pay you already in taxes and cut the pork out and show yourself to be a good steward of my money...The Bible (I'm not overly religious but bear with my comparison) -- says that if you are a good steward over a few things God will make you steward over many things...Our politicians can't even make ends meet with the money they have already, why should we have to give them more and them blow it on friviolous pork projects and other "pet projects" they want to support to line their own wallets...

I agree Biden is an idiot...
quote:
Originally posted by bama in chi-town:
I understand what you are saying and you are correct. However, when taxes are increased it takes $ out of the hands of the consumer and business owners which is ultimately, on the macro level, "job creating capital". The thing that should be asked is if that resource($)is put to better use by gov't or by the private sector? My vote goes with the private sector because the private sector has an incentive(profit) to use it efficiently whereas the gov't has no such incentive.


He said it is patriotic for rich people to pay their fair share. At the same time, the taxes are to be lower for the middle class, who WILL put their dollars back into the economy. A rich person buying a more expensive European suit is not going to benefit the American economy.And experience has shown us that, the wealthy will invest the additional funds, not funnel them back into the economy. And they certainly would not spend them in small businesses. The only thing that trickles down is BS.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by bama in chi-town:
I understand what you are saying and you are correct. However, when taxes are increased it takes $ out of the hands of the consumer and business owners which is ultimately, on the macro level, "job creating capital". The thing that should be asked is if that resource($)is put to better use by gov't or by the private sector? My vote goes with the private sector because the private sector has an incentive(profit) to use it efficiently whereas the gov't has no such incentive.


He said it is patriotic for rich people to pay their fair share. At the same time, the taxes are to be lower for the middle class, who WILL put their dollars back into the economy. A rich person buying a more expensive European suit is not going to benefit the American economy.And experience has shown us that, the wealthy will invest the additional funds, not funnel them back into the economy. And they certainly would not spend them in small businesses. The only thing that trickles down is BS.


"Fair share" is a very subjective term. What is a "fair share"? The top 5% already pay 55% of the tax. Should they pay 70, 80, or 90 percent?

Also, investing funds IS putting it back into the economy. A dollar does not stop moving just because it is invested. Do you think that when you deposit money into your savings account that it is put into a box with your name on it and held until you come pick it up again? Of course not. That dollar is loaned to a small business owner or maybe a farmer who might buy new equipment or expand their business. If taxes are increased by a dollar then that is one less dollar that will circulate through our economy. Take off your political goggles and look at things from an economic perspective because good politics equals bad economics and vice versa.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MOBY:
Taxes are NOT job creating capital. They are levied AFTER expenses, including salaries. One way a company can reduce their tax burden is through creating jobs. In addition, Obama's plan gives credits to businesses that create jobs.



Why would a company create a job (assuming it's not really a needed position) and pay someone a salary of $50,000 a year to prevent them from paying $18,000 in taxes?
quote:
Originally posted by 1Lewis:

Why would a company create a job (assuming it's not really a needed position) and pay someone a salary of $50,000 a year to prevent them from paying $18,000 in taxes?



If it's not a needed position, then your argument does not hold water. It is a nonissue. NO ONE hires unneeded positions.

By your reasoning, why would they not lay off the $50,000 a year person and pay the taxes instead?

They would hire a $50,000 per year employee because they have unmet demand and therefore will get additional revenue if they increase production. There are optimum staffing levels/space considerations/equipment levels that result in the best financial outcome. The What if analysis that is required to determine just how much business you want to do and how much capacity you should add/turn away is a very complex issue and requires re-examination on at LEAST a monthly basis. It is not as simple as if I do A the result is B.

Even then, if the business man can outsource the job to Bangladesh for $10 per day, what difference do the taxes make? He’ll still be ahead (36% tax on the salary savings of $46,350 by outsourcing the job results in a net profit of $29,664 after the additional taxes).

Businesses outsource because they can. People continue to buy whatever foreign made schlock they throw on the shelves. Refusing to shop at WalMart and any other un-American business is a start. Buying only foods that are in season in OUR country and are not imported from some third world country also helps.I would rather pay more and buy less, than see all of this country's wealth continue to flow out the door, never to return again.

MadeinUSAforever

How to buy American
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
If it's not a needed position, then your argument does not hold water. It is a nonissue. NO ONE hires unneeded positions.

By your reasoning, why would they not lay off the $50,000 a year person and pay the taxes instead?

They would hire a $50,000 per year employee because they have unmet demand and therefore will get additional revenue if they increase production. There are optimum staffing levels/space considerations/equipment levels that result in the best financial outcome. The What if analysis that is required to determine just how much business you want to do and how much capacity you should add/turn away is a very complex issue and requires re-examination on at LEAST a monthly basis. It is not as simple as if I do A the result is B.

Even then, if the business man can outsource the job to Bangladesh for $10 per day, what difference do the taxes make? He’ll still be ahead (36% tax on the salary savings of $46,350 by outsourcing the job results in a net profit of $29,664 after the additional taxes).

Businesses outsource because they can. People continue to buy whatever foreign made schlock they throw on the shelves. Refusing to shop at WalMart and any other un-American business is a start. Buying only foods that are in season in OUR country and are not imported from some third world country also helps.I would rather pay more and buy less, than see all of this country's wealth continue to flow out the door, never to return again.

MadeinUSAforever

How to buy American


I agree with the above statement. How does Obama/Biden plan to prevent the outsourcing of jobs? As you say the incentives and taxes don't matter if it can still be done cheaper elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by 1Lewis:
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
If it's not a needed position, then your argument does not hold water. It is a nonissue. NO ONE hires unneeded positions.

By your reasoning, why would they not lay off the $50,000 a year person and pay the taxes instead?

They would hire a $50,000 per year employee because they have unmet demand and therefore will get additional revenue if they increase production. There are optimum staffing levels/space considerations/equipment levels that result in the best financial outcome. The What if analysis that is required to determine just how much business you want to do and how much capacity you should add/turn away is a very complex issue and requires re-examination on at LEAST a monthly basis. It is not as simple as if I do A the result is B.

Even then, if the business man can outsource the job to Bangladesh for $10 per day, what difference do the taxes make? He’ll still be ahead (36% tax on the salary savings of $46,350 by outsourcing the job results in a net profit of $29,664 after the additional taxes).

Businesses outsource because they can. People continue to buy whatever foreign made schlock they throw on the shelves. Refusing to shop at WalMart and any other un-American business is a start. Buying only foods that are in season in OUR country and are not imported from some third world country also helps.I would rather pay more and buy less, than see all of this country's wealth continue to flow out the door, never to return again.

MadeinUSAforever

How to buy American


I agree with the above statement. How does Obama/Biden plan to prevent the outsourcing of jobs? As you say the incentives and taxes don't matter if it can still be done cheaper elsewhere.


By disallowing a tax deduction for outsourced salaries and expenses. The major responsibility, however, lies with the consumer. If we were to stop patronizing the biggest outsourcing culprits, they would either go out of business or clean up their act.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
Moby, you are eat up with it....

Biden, the idiot, call paying higher taxes a "patriotic act". The only "act" involved is raising both hands while the government picks your pocket.


Sorry, Moby is correct. As a business owner, I
would be much better off with Obamas tax plan than under McCains tax plan. Moby is right on the button. I can plan for taxes and my accountant will make sure I am getting all the deduductions I am entitled to take. My largest expenses have to do with employee payroll and benefits.

I don't understand why so many of you are crying about the redistribution of wealth and yet I don't here anyone crying about the fact that WE will have to pay for the mess all the executives made with these companies we are bailing out right now. They have got into this mess primarily by preying on middle class people. Now, we are going to pay to clean up their messes AND pay them for making the mess (severence pay). Why is no one yelling about that? Why is everyone so worried about the wealthy having to pay a little more under Obamas plan and no one has mentioned anything about how the wealthy will get a greater tax break than the middle class under McCains plan?
The idea is that if the middle class is paying less in taxes they will have more spending money. More spending money = more business. More business = More jobs. If a business makes $75,000.00 a year more in increased business and has to pay $50,000.00 a year more for salaries. That would still leave a $25,000.00 profit for that business (not to mention tax credits and releif from health benefits). If the business owner had to pay $18,000.00 more in taxes they are still left with a $7,000.00 profit. Of course this is broke down in the simplist terms, but the concept is the same.
As taxes increase, they reach a point of diminishing returns, that less and less is collected as the rates got up -- a principle known since the Domesday Book.

By the Democrat argument, Bush's lower taxes should have resulted in less revenue collected. However, the opposite is the case, more revenue was collected after the tax cut. To insist on a tax increase that would decrease revenue in a time of increasing deficits represents a triumph of belief over fact -- politics as religion.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • us_tax_revenue
If Joe Biden REALLY believes that paying higher taxes is patriotic.

It Takes money to run wars republicans!! Hello, we have a $9.5 trillion National Debt, we owe Chin $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Yes republicans if you want wars, then, yes, it's only fair to say paying higher taxes is patriotic. So you patriotic republicans get your flags ready and your check books. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
As taxes increase, they reach a point of diminishing returns, that less and less is collected as the rates got up -- a principle known since the Domesday Book.

By the Democrat argument, Bush's lower taxes should have resulted in less revenue collected. However, the opposite is the case, more revenue was collected after the tax cut. To insist on a tax increase that would decrease revenue in a time of increasing deficits represents a triumph of belief over fact -- politics as religion.


Yeah. The Domesday survey was taken in 1086 AD. Now that's change I can get behind. Roll Eyes Now I know why Washington is so screwed up.
Last edited by MOBY
JJP denies the reality that over taxation causes a decrease in tax revenue -- for him its polemics and poltical beliefs over reality.

Moby,

The Domesday Book, listing all the wealth and possessions of the king's subjects gave him an idea of how much to tax and how much not to tax. A principle know since 1068 is lost on today's politicians.

As shown, taxes were cut and revenue increased. Of course, law of casuality is lost on the left. They repeatedly try to repeal it.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
JJP denies the reality that over taxation causes a decrease in tax revenue -- for him its polemics and poltical beliefs over reality.

Moby,

The Domesday Book, listing all the wealth and possessions of the king's subjects gave him an idea of how much to tax and how much not to tax. A principle know since 1068 is lost on today's politicians.

As shown, taxes were cut and revenue increased. Of course, law of casuality is lost on the left. They repeatedly try to repeal it.


Cute graph. Your conclusion, however, assumes that the entire increase in revenue is due to a decrease in taxes. Any additional disposable income would only return as tax revenue at a FRACTION of what it would be if it were kept in as taxes. How much of the increase in the graph is due to increased foreign investment and not simply the additional funds going back into the economy? How much was the result of increased government spending which was funded by debt(yes, government expenditures ARE a part of the economy)?

You have not demonstrated that the increase in middle class disposable income would contribute less to the economy than it would if it were in the hands of the .667 percent of the population that would have an increase.

I think your greater concern should be why your president has made it necessary for whoever wins the election to have to scramble to cover the costs of his power orgy.

Incidentally, in 1086 it was also a widely held belief that the world was flat, in spite of the proof to the contrary. Those of us who actually crawled out of the Dark Ages know that belief does not hold water either.
No, just that lowering taxes is a major contributing factor. Obviously increased commerce due to lowered taxes have a multipier effect.

Foreign investmentor are attracted to successful commerce and lower taxes.

Increased government spending is helpful -- since tax revenue increased, there was more to spend and less to borrow and spend.

Proving anything about middle claas disposable was not my purpose, nor should it be the concern of government.

Yes, in 1086, they held may erroneous beliefs. However, they knew the sun rose in the east, that base metall in coinage debased the economy of a nation, and that imporverishing a people with ruinous taxes dacayed a nation.

There is little under heaven or earth that is new.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:

Just where do you think the employers of the middle class fall in respect to the percentages? I know where my boss is and I guarantee you that that the company I work for could not have arisen during and Obama administration. For the record the company I work for is approximately 27 years old.


That's funny. Obama is simply proposing that the upper tax rate go back to where it was a few years ago. Somehow your employer muddled through all of those years on that rate. At one point, tax rates were even higher than that.

Unless his TAXABLE income (after all expenses including your salary) is over $250,000, then he will not see an increase. In fact, he would then see a decrease. It should also be noted that the upper tax rate only applies to taxable income OVER that amount. An upper rate of 39% does not mean that he will pay that on all of his taxable income. For example, if his TAXABLE income is $350,000, the additional tax would be less than $4,000 (the additional 4% on $100,000). I believe that there is an intermediate rate in there so some of the $100,000 would see less than the full 4% increase.

This is assuming that your employer is not incorporated and files his business income on his personal return. If he does not, then the point is moot as the proposed changes are on individual taxpayers.

If you think this is unfair please note that, according to the Tax Policy Center, 2/3 of the Bush tax cuts went to the top quintile of taxpayers in 2007 and less than 1% went to the lowest. Tax Policy Center

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×