Obama to Small Business Owners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Also, taxes were much higher before 1970, when the US economy was roaring. [/quote]

Care to explain the differences that came about in the tax code in 1986?

Because without doing so, your statement is talking point nonsense.

Please explain how having less profit is an incentive to invest in your company more?

I’m so happy the roads and teachers are there to help a company collect AR, deal with vendors, manage employees and inventory. Shit, if it wasn’t for the pavement on Elm Street, my clients would actually have to worry about how they are going to cover payroll this week…

122

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

How do you see the U.S. ecomony growing out of the rut we’ve been in? [/quote]

Well, the best and quickest would be some sort of “breakout” in the private sector. Something significant in a significant industry just needs to boom. Cure cancer, make a real fuel alternative that is cost effective, produce something, one god damn thing, that everyone can rally behind. A fucking iPad isn’t going to cut it either.

We need something from the private sector, not the federal reserve, Washington or Wall St, but the “joe plumbers” of the world to get us moving. Momentum will follow.

[/quote]

I completely agree. Although just going off your examples a real fuel alternative would be devastating to the oil industry, which would hurt the economy a lot. The lost jobs alone would be a killer. We need a modern day industrial revolution so to speak, I just hope someone with a mind more creative than my own can create it.

123

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Also, taxes were much higher before 1970, when the US economy was roaring. [/quote]

Care to explain the differences that came about in the tax code in 1986?

Because without doing so, your statement is talking point nonsense.

Please explain how having less profit is an incentive to invest in your company more?

I’m so happy the roads and teachers are there to help a company collect AR, deal with vendors, manage employees and inventory. Shit, if it wasn’t for the pavement on Elm Street, my clients would actually have to worry about how they are going to cover payroll this week…

[/quote]

It never really gets old watching ol’ K9000 get owned.

124

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Although just going off your examples a real fuel alternative would be devastating to the oil industry, which would hurt the economy a lot. [/quote]

No need to worry there. The government would just give them more incentives and subsidies.

125

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Which payroll tax are you refering to?

Or are you unaware there is more than one?

[/quote]

lower wage earners do not buy houses…they rent them…they do not benefit from this deduction…

More talking point bullshit.

See my fraud comment above.

[/quote]

Social security caps off at 102,500 and is a flat tax

medicare is a flat tax

both are regressive as they disproportionately tax the purchasing power of low income wage earners…

it doesn’t matter if employers shoulder the burden of the tax as it is effectively part of the employees wage cost along with health care…

Cap gains…They are regressive as low-middle class wage earners do not have income to save, so the marginal rates are irrelevant…when you take into account the fact that wealth magnifies due to compounding, you can see how the rich disproportionately benefit from capital gains…

mortgage interest deduction subsidizes larger nicer homes for the upper middle class where they can effectively take a large deduction against their tax bracket…lower wage earners are mostly renters and must use the standard deduction which is relatively small vs their rental cost…

I won’t discuss the the fraud, but it does occur quite frequently…

All I’m saying is that the tax code can be regressive…I can create a scenario where someone who makes 40,000 and someone who makes 250k in wages and 100k in cap gains will pay the same effective tax rate…

In the end, it doesn’t matter though because a tax hike for the rich is imminent…

126

Social security and Medicare are “regressive”. Guess who uses the services more. Lower income people.
Listen I get the whole marginal propensity to consume argument, but realize theres a threshold of benefits that lower income people get. Having them PAY even a marginal amount towards these does not diminish what they are given in excess.

People like to throw the word regressive out there to instantly condemn an idea, like a consumption tax, without first realizing that lower income people are net takers from taxation redistribution scheme.

127

[quote]D Public wrote:

lower wage earners do not buy houses…they rent them…they do not benefit from this deduction…[/quote]

Okay.

Because one person doesn’t own a home and another does, this somehow means the tax is regressive?

[quote]

Social security caps off at 102,500 and is a flat tax

medicare is a flat tax

both are regressive as they disproportionately tax the purchasing power of low income wage earners…[/quote]

Um, you call it a flat tax in one line, and then say it is disproportionate in another. Which is it. 7.65% is 7.65%.

As for SS and it’s cap: you are talking about the largest ponsi scheme known to man, run by the government. People that make that much don’t pay in as much, so they won’t overly drain from the pool when they retire. You “get back what you put in”. So, you would rather they put in more, only to get massive benefits when they are 70? Or will you bitch about them getting too much of the pie then too?

Bullshit. I worked all through college. Lived off campus on 12k a year. I still saved 10+% of my income.

Please with this shit. My rainy day fund still has money I earned in 2004 in it.

People in the 15% bracket pay 0% in cap gains. Everyone else pays 15%. How is that regressive?

Look into AMT. This often times makes your statement null and avoid.

Also, just because someone has less than someone else doesn’t mean the deduction is regressive. YOu are projecting your political philosphy onto the IRC, and it isn’t going to jive.

Nice conjecture.

How many hours a year to you work preparing returns? Your apeal to authority is interesting.

Please do. Without breakign the law. Because contrary to your post, most people don’t.

128

[quote]666Rich wrote:
without first realizing that lower income people are net takers [/quote]

This is another good point, that no one ever seems to address.

129

[quote]D Public wrote:

Social security caps off at 102,500 [/quote]

Not that a small error in number automatically makes your entire post invalid, but your limit is wrong

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/maxtax.htm#maxEarnings

130


.

131

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
K2000 wrote:

Please explain how having less profit is an incentive to invest in your company more?
[/quote]

If you need this to be explained (for example, that business ‘profits’ aren’t solely defined as money you put in your own pocket) then you must be the world’s dumbest ‘bean counter’.

132

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
No, you did NOT build your business without any of those things. Absolutely not! [/quote]

And our tax dollars didn’t pay for that?

I mean really, the concept of what he said isn’t the issue here comrade. It is the words he careful used that are the problem.[/quote]

Exactly! I think you’re getting it! EVERYBODY’S taxes helped pay for the roads, bridges, police force, court system, power grid, telephone system, etc. Therefore, even if you have a one-person business that you built on your own, your business still couldn’t possibly exist without the US infrastructure, paid for by everyone’s taxes.

I think we have a breakthrough.

133

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
K2000 wrote:

Please explain how having less profit is an incentive to invest in your company more?
[/quote]

If you need this to be explained (for example, that business ‘profits’ aren’t solely defined as money you put in your own pocket) then you must be the world’s dumbest ‘bean counter’.
[/quote]

well, seeing as your response was a subtle appeal to authority and personal attack, does that mean you can’t explain the situation?

Please, I’m in dire anticipation to learn here.

I have a feeling, assuming you aren’t just repeating talking points you heard else where, I know what you are going to say. And yes I have a response for that. But I want to hear your thoughts before I respond.

134

[quote]K2000 wrote:
EVERYBODY’S taxes helped pay for the roads, bridges, police force, court system, power grid, telephone system, etc.[/quote]

No, not really. Only about 50% of people who work are responsible for that.

The other 50% or so either pay almost no taxes or live off of the tax dollars the business owners pay.

Did you miss the second sentence I wrote? Or are your ignoring it because it would cause you to look at the situation from an angle that might challenge your belief system?

[quote]I think we have a breakthrough.
[/quote]

I think you are trying to sound condescending on purpose and are highly assumptive of the people you are typing to here.

135

Also:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
roads, bridges, [/quote]

Who do you think the government hires to build and pave these things? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

who makes their guns, badges, flash lights, mace spray, hand cuffs, and bullet proof vests? Who invented 99% of that shit? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Who put hammer to nail and framed out the buildings these courts are held in? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Who supplies electricity and maintains the lines? Who comes to your house when a tree falls and takes out a line? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Verizon…

Yeah, I mean I get it was a huge day in the Obama household when he finally grasped what a society is, too bad he purposely sounded like Stalin trying to explain his revelation.

136

Take a Business 101 course if you need to understand how it’s possible that business profits are not just the owner’s salary. Duh.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
EVERYBODY’S taxes helped pay for the roads, bridges, police force, court system, power grid, telephone system, etc.[/quote]

No, not really. Only about 50% of people who work are responsible for that.

The other 50% or so either pay almost no taxes or live off of the tax dollars the business owners pay.
[/quote]

Wrong. You’re referring to Income Tax, which some people don’t pay because (wait for it) THEY HAVE NO INCOME, or they are not making enough money to be able to afford to pay income taxes. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. These people still pay Payroll taxes (if they are working) plus sales tax on everything they buy. The idea that some people pay zero taxes is mostly false. It’s a talking point you are parroting.

But this is just you splitting hairs about how poor people need to pay more taxes. Would you have been happier if the president would have explained that ‘most’ everybody has contributed to Small Business success (except for the poor people, who are too poor to chip in)? No, you wouldn’t. But his point would have remained the same.

I pay taxes for roads (but I don’t drive) and I pay taxes for schools (but I don’t have kids) and I pay taxes to keep the court system running (but I have never been to court). These are all things that the small business in my area benefit from, which I have contributed to with my taxes. I helped make it possible for your small business to even exist. If you are in a rural area, you wouldn’t even have a phone service, mail service, sewer system, drivable roads, or electrical service without the help of other Americans. Let alone own your own small business.

As far as government subsidies for businesses, and all the low-interest federal business loans and grant money , we can leave that for another time.

137

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
No, you did NOT build your business without any of those things. Absolutely not! [/quote]

And our tax dollars didn’t pay for that?

I mean really, the concept of what he said isn’t the issue here comrade. It is the words he careful used that are the problem.[/quote]

Exactly! I think you’re getting it! EVERYBODY’S taxes helped pay for the roads, bridges, police force, court system, power grid, telephone system, etc. Therefore, even if you have a one-person business that you built on your own, your business still couldn’t possibly exist without the US infrastructure, paid for by everyone’s taxes.

I think we have a breakthrough.
[/quote]

Did wonders for Greece.

138

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
No, you did NOT build your business without any of those things. Absolutely not! [/quote]

And our tax dollars didn’t pay for that?

I mean really, the concept of what he said isn’t the issue here comrade. It is the words he careful used that are the problem.[/quote]

Exactly! I think you’re getting it! EVERYBODY’S taxes helped pay for the roads, bridges, police force, court system, power grid, telephone system, etc. Therefore, even if you have a one-person business that you built on your own, your business still couldn’t possibly exist without the US infrastructure, paid for by everyone’s taxes.

I think we have a breakthrough.
[/quote]

And that business owner has most likely paid more than his fair share in order for those important bridges and roads to be built. Or don’t you know that the top 10% income earners pay 70% of all taxes!

So tell us again how important government is in helping that business owner.

Higher taxes federally and state wide, intrusive zoning laws locally, sky rocketing property tax and enough red tape and regulations to drive the business owner crazy.

But in spite of government the successful small business person succeeds anyway. The government is truly the enemy of the small business.

Obama, once again, has it backwards, why am I not surprised? The man has no experience in business or as a Chief Executive. We have to expect him to say stupid things like this on a regular basis and he has not disappointed us.

He’s a left wing idealogue that needs to be replaced if we are ever going to dig out of the mess that he’s furthered.

139

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And that business owner has most likely paid more than his fair share in order for those important bridges and roads to be built. Or don’t you know that the top 10% income earners pay 70% of all taxes!

So tell us again how important government is in helping that business owner. [/quote]

Lets not forget the Muni Bonds the states sell to those evil 1%'ers to raise money to build 99% of the shit listed above.

How fucking dare those scum bags invest in our country? They should spread their wealth around… Oh wait.

140

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
roads, bridges, [/quote]

Who do you think the government hires to build and pave these things? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

who makes their guns, badges, flash lights, mace spray, hand cuffs, and bullet proof vests? Who invented 99% of that shit? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Who put hammer to nail and framed out the buildings these courts are held in? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Who supplies electricity and maintains the lines? Who comes to your house when a tree falls and takes out a line? Private companies built off the sweat and effort of private citizens

Verizon…

Yeah, I mean I get it was a huge day in the Obama household when he finally grasped what a society is, too bad he purposely sounded like Stalin trying to explain his revelation.
[/quote]

Wow, maybe you are really dense, or just feigning stupidity. The Federal government (meaning we the taxpayers) paid for the electrical grid, the highway system, the building of court buildings, dams, bridges and other PUBLIC projects. If private companies like Verizon had built the phone system on their own, there would have been no phone service in the boonies (not enough profit to run lines for just a few customers). Have you ever taken a US history class? Are you still in high school? (a lot of youngsters post here). There’s no financial incentive for a private company to run power to rural America – so taxpayers paid for it. That’s why there will always be a US Postal Service (besides the Constitutional mandate): because people in the middle of nowhere need deliveries too, even if it’s not profitable for Fed Ex. And BTW, you can think of those people as potential CUSTOMERS for small business, too. :wink:

Everybody who has ever paid taxes paid for US infrastructure, and without that there would be no possibility of small business ownership, for all practical purposes. How many times does this need to be explained?