Obama to Small Business Owners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
I’m also just going to post this chart to illustrate why I believe that this country needs a more progressive taxation policy. [/quote]

Yes, I think you make a good point. Right now the top 1% only pay 37% of all income taxes and that’s not nearly enough. I’m thinking we should place a larger tax burden on them. What do you say to the top 1% paying 60% of all taxes? That way the middle class can get some tax relief from that incredibly high 30% rate that those poor bastards have to put up with.

And when we nearly double the already too high tax rate on the wealthy we can look forward to less business start-ups, and less expansion, more lay offs and paying higher prices for products and services.

And of course more people on unemployment, welfare food stamps and the many other hundreds of government programs.

Obamanomics at its best!

(eye roll)
[/quote]

To a large extent, they earned that wealth by repressing wages, cutting jobs, or compounding their money in the capital markets. So, yes I think they deserve to pay more. These individuals are not creating jobs and the chart I posted is proof. The true wealth creation occurs when you invest in human capital. Something these individuals have chosen not to do because they don’t want to or don’t know how.

An increase in taxes will not increase prices on most goods as there already is a demand destroying effect at current price levels. Firms must price goods in relation to a consumer’s budgetary constraints which means that most firms are stuck in regards to pricing. I’ve watched margins begin to erode for many corporations this year due to this issue.

I’m all for tax incentives for business creation. I would like nothing more than for a massive job bill that creates tons of new tax rules in regards to helping small businesses.

162

[quote]D Public wrote:

An increase in taxes will not increase prices on most goods as there already is a demand destroying effect at current price levels. Firms must price goods in relation to a consumer’s budgetary constraints which means that most firms are stuck in regards to pricing.
[/quote]

So… Then they must cuts costs in order to compete.

What is the fastest cost to cut?

If price has to stay stagnant, and the costs go up in the form of tax, what does a company do to stay profitable?

163

well like i said, I’m all for incentivizing business to hire, retain good labor, and pay higher wages to those who deserve them.

I don’t see Obama’s policies affecting profitability besides some businesses who are using international entities to reduce taxable income or the oil and gas industry. Obama’s tax increases are largely targeted at wealthy individuals and people who derive wealth through unearned income, so it depends on whether wealthy business owners are willing to take a pay cut or not.

Obviously, it is possible that some employers may reduce labor if their is a tax hike, but I don’t see that happening on a large scale. Most businesses are running very light right now, so it would be difficult to find people who are expendable. They would have to force their existing workforce to do more than what they are currently doing which will be a challenge. It is possible that the better employees would shoulder this burden and because of this they may ultimately leave the company for another owner who is absorbing the taxes or paying higher wages to compensate his employees. My theory is that it actually increases competition and increases the effectiveness of the free market.

164

I would also like to say we need to reduce the cost of health care by diverting more money into research and preventive care rather than wasteful post care health care practices. It has been estimated that if we reduced weight levels back to pre-1990 levels that we would save $1 trillion a yr in health care costs. Chemists are trying to create magic pills to cure obesity(and charge outrageous amounts of money for these pills that we tnationers know don’t work) when this society really needs a diet intervention. Nobody talks about this, but it is a serious drag on the economy.

165

[quote]D Public wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
I’m also just going to post this chart to illustrate why I believe that this country needs a more progressive taxation policy. [/quote]

Yes, I think you make a good point. Right now the top 1% only pay 37% of all income taxes and that’s not nearly enough. I’m thinking we should place a larger tax burden on them. What do you say to the top 1% paying 60% of all taxes? That way the middle class can get some tax relief from that incredibly high 30% rate that those poor bastards have to put up with.

And when we nearly double the already too high tax rate on the wealthy we can look forward to less business start-ups, and less expansion, more lay offs and paying higher prices for products and services.

And of course more people on unemployment, welfare food stamps and the many other hundreds of government programs.

Obamanomics at its best!

(eye roll)
[/quote]

To a large extent, they earned that wealth by repressing wages,[/quote]

LOL…repressing wages? If I want to attract a job better candidate to my business I have to pay him/her more not less. And if someone wants to steal him away he has to offer them more. You have it backwards.

If there is no business due to a poor economy it is no fault of the business owner. Do you honestly think the business owner wants to cut jobs? That means less product produced and sold and less money for the owner.

Ah yes the magical capital markets that the leftists just don’t understand. If I buy 1000 shares of IBM they have the use of my money as a part owner. They then have more capital for expansion. No one is harmed by this and many are helped.

No, you think they deserve to be punished! Because they would already pay more if everyone paid 20% in taxes the guy who made a million bucks one year would pay 200-k and the guy who made 50-k would pay 10-k. But that’s not enough for you because you are jealous and want the rich punished then you’ll feel better about yourself.

As I’ve already pointed out to you wealth can be created in a multitude of ways. Starting your own business, working for a larger company to further their success and yes investing in the capital markets which allows companies more capital to grow and expand their public company which in turn would be hiring people for that expansion.

When government raises taxes many (not all but most) businesses pass that tax hike on in higher prices. And one more thing they do when government raises taxes, businesses repress wages to compensate for the tax hike. You are punishing the very people you propose to help. Socialism, or any variation of socialism does not work–Read up on your history my friend.

[quote]I’m all for tax incentives for business creation. I would like nothing more than for a massive job bill that creates tons of new tax rules in regards to helping small businesses.
[/quote]

You may be for it but your hero Barack Obama is NOT for it. 66% of all new jobs come from small business. And Obama tried as hard as he could to belittle these people in his most recent statements. No tax incentives to hire, no reduction of taxes to purchase new equipment NOTHING! Just a promise to hike the taxes on ever S and LLC corporation whose cash flows through as personal income…Oh and a great big slap in the face with his comments.

Obama is despicable and must be defeated in order for this country to turn around.

166

[quote]D Public wrote:
I would also like to say we need to reduce the cost of health care by diverting more money into research and preventive care rather than wasteful post care health care practices. It has been estimated that if we reduced weight levels back to pre-1990 levels that we would save $1 trillion a yr in health care costs. Chemists are trying to create magic pills to cure obesity(and charge outrageous amounts of money for these pills that we tnationers know don’t work) when this society really needs a diet intervention. Nobody talks about this, but it is a serious drag on the economy.

[/quote]

I think if we could come up with a plan that allowed consumers to recoup their premiums if they don’t go to the doctor, you would see costs go down.

Like an HSA except your premiums are paid into the account and you get your money back at the end of the year if you don’t use them. Minus an administrative fee of course. You have this for your typically checkups and what not coupled with catastrophic insurance and bam people will not abuse the system as much. Key phrase AS MUCH.

I’m sure this is gonna piss some folks off, but you could even treat healthcare premiums as a “tax” of sorts and have your provider issue a statement showing how much of the premiums were used during the year. The remainder could be a dollar for dollar deduction.

I can’t remember exactly how much my insurance is, but I think it’s about 130 a paycheck. So that’s over 3 grand a year in premiums. I’ve been to the doctor once in the last 5 years. so that’s 15 grand basically for nothing. It sure would be nice to get some of that money back.

167

Compliments of Max:

How many businesses has this train built guys?

168

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]D Public wrote:
I’m also just going to post this chart to illustrate why I believe that this country needs a more progressive taxation policy. [/quote]

Yes, I think you make a good point. Right now the top 1% only pay 37% of all income taxes and that’s not nearly enough. I’m thinking we should place a larger tax burden on them. What do you say to the top 1% paying 60% of all taxes? That way the middle class can get some tax relief from that incredibly high 30% rate that those poor bastards have to put up with.

And when we nearly double the already too high tax rate on the wealthy we can look forward to less business start-ups, and less expansion, more lay offs and paying higher prices for products and services.

And of course more people on unemployment, welfare food stamps and the many other hundreds of government programs.

Obamanomics at its best!

(eye roll)
[/quote]

I think Leftists don’t quite grasp the severity of America’s financial problems. Taxing the rich to bail the U.S. out of debt is not only short-sighted, but it isn’t even viable at this point.

“The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren’t enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget.”

I think the last thing you guys want to do is give your wealthy yet another reason to funnel their money out of the U.S.

169

Something else to consider about “the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer”…

It looks like the poor are getting poorer, but only because the distance between “zero” and the average top quintile income is always increasing. There’s no limit to how high the top 5%'s income can be, but the poor can only amass so much wealth before they’re no longer considered poor.

It’s not a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, what’s happening is the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer too, thus becoming “rich” themselves. It’s just that young people entering the workforce and immigrants entering the country guarantee there will always be “poor” and since the lowest possible income is $0, the lowest amount one can earn remains the same while the potential “highest” one can earn is always increasing.

170

Completely taken out of context. He’s not saying that you didn’t build your business, he’s saying you didn’t build the bridges and the roads.

“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

If you watch the speech it is clear that he is referring to the bridges and the roads. He also clearly states that business success is a combination of the good, smart hard work of business owners AND the rest of society. Like all the internet businesses. They would not be around without the government inventing the internet first.

171

[quote]molnes wrote:

Completely taken out of context. He’s not saying that you didn’t build your business, he’s saying you didn’t build the bridges and the roads.

“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

If you watch the speech it is clear that he is referring to the bridges and the roads. He also clearly states that business success is a combination of the good, smart hard work of business owners AND the rest of society.

[/quote]

Nice spin job.

[quote]
Like all the internet businesses. They would not be around without the government inventing the internet first. [/quote]

Actually that’s nonsense. The internet was created almost entirely by private companies and private individuals with some involvement from the U.S. defence department. It was not ‘invented by the government.’ And Obama is now busily slashing the defence department.

172

[quote]molnes wrote:

Completely taken out of context. He’s not saying that you didn’t build your business,

[/quote]

Obama: “If you got a business - you didn’t build that.”

?

“If you got a business - you didn’t build that.”

?

Oh okay, gotcha. So when Obama says “you didn’t build that(your business,)” what he really means is that you didn’t build the roads and bridges…right.

173

“You say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of manâ??s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the looted or mooched â?? made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he canâ??t consume more than he has produced.” - Francisco d’Anconia (Atlas Shrugged)

174

[quote]molnes wrote:

Completely taken out of context. He’s not saying that you didn’t build your business, he’s saying you didn’t build the bridges and the roads.

“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

If you watch the speech it is clear that he is referring to the bridges and the roads. He also clearly states that business success is a combination of the good, smart hard work of business owners AND the rest of society. Like all the internet businesses. They would not be around without the government inventing the internet first. [/quote]

And does it bother you when they attack Mitt Romney for being a rich guy? No probably not…that’s how the game is played. Each side will grab every opportunity to belittle the other. Buck up and sit back and wach the show.

175

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

Completely taken out of context. He’s not saying that you didn’t build your business, he’s saying you didn’t build the bridges and the roads.

“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

If you watch the speech it is clear that he is referring to the bridges and the roads. He also clearly states that business success is a combination of the good, smart hard work of business owners AND the rest of society. Like all the internet businesses. They would not be around without the government inventing the internet first. [/quote]

And does it bother you when they attack Mitt Romney for being a rich guy? No probably not…that’s how the game is played. Each side will grab every opportunity to belittle the other. Buck up and sit back and wach the show.

[/quote]

I think you misunderstand ZEB, the story is about Faux propaganda machine clearly spinning a phrase.

176

Obama could also have said “teachers don’t do it alone…” but he didn’t he chose to attack business people.

177

This pretty much sums it up for me,

“Maybe so. But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that it’s best if government provides the public goods business needs to become a viable and successful enterprise. Even in that case, Mr Obama’s conclusion, that the rich ought to pay more in taxes, does not follow. As it stands, high-earners do “give something back”: 35% of yearly income. But that’s just to the feds. Here in Iowa, they pay an additional 9% to the state. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a lot! According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 “[t]he top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes”. If that’s not giving something back, what is?”

Honestly, how much more will the top earners give before they throw in the towel or simply leave the U.S.?

178

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This pretty much sums it up for me,

“Maybe so. But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that it’s best if government provides the public goods business needs to become a viable and successful enterprise. Even in that case, Mr Obama’s conclusion, that the rich ought to pay more in taxes, does not follow. As it stands, high-earners do “give something back”: 35% of yearly income. But that’s just to the feds. Here in Iowa, they pay an additional 9% to the state. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a lot! According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 “[t]he top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes”. If that’s not giving something back, what is?”

Honestly, how much more will the top earners give before they throw in the towel or simply leave the U.S.?

[/quote]

Very well said.

One more thing that Obama and his socialist pals do not recognize is that small business people give back by automatically by virtue of their success. If a small business person employs 25 people those are 25 people who have jobs and further contribute to the economy.

Also, I would love one of the liberals on this board to explain to me how the economy has a better chance of growing when the government takes more money out of the very hands of those responsible for helping the economy grow, the job creators.

179

What is the deal with this?

180

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Honestly, how much more will the top earners give before they throw in the towel or simply leave the U.S.?

[/quote]

There is a significant amount of dollars going overseas now.

Not only is there actual growth in foreign markets right now, unlike the US, but the tax burdens are better. So to avoid paying US rates, they “leave the money” in the foreign markets.