What about the spending side?? B.O. raises tax to cut deficit (even though it will rise this year!)… We have a deficit because we spend more than we make… If this is your household, what do you do? You spend less. My biggest pet peeve is that the government gives money to people who have many kids when those parents themsleves CANNOT afford them…
SMIRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at the top marginal tax rate in the early > 1980’s before Reagan put the smackdown. It was > 90%+. Kennedy reduced it from 90%+ to a 7 handle. Reagan reduced it from ~70% to ~50%. http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
CzarHC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you think Obama wouldn’t love to tax people making > over a million dollars at 90%? Does this have anything to do with anything? I think the Glenn Beck is infiltrating your brain. He must hate white people too, right?
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SMIRK Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Look at the top marginal tax rate in the early > > 1980’s before Reagan put the smackdown. It was > > 90%+. > > Kennedy reduced it from 90%+ to a 7 handle. > Reagan reduced it from ~70% to ~50%. > > http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php According to this chart, the top rate didn’t drop into the 70’s until 1964. Are you saying Kennedy’s ghost did it?
Let’s look at Obama’s recent rhetoric against banker’s making exorbitant amounts of money. He wants to punish the banks who already paid back TARP and limit the compensation for bankers. Yes, I think that has everything to do with it since taxing those making over a million would include the “fat cats” of wall street. Why don’t you relax your slacks there buddy.
SMIRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to this chart, the top rate didn’t drop > into the 70’s until 1964. Are you saying Kennedy’s > ghost did it? Kennedy’s ghost also landed on the moon in 1969.
CzarHC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let’s look at Obama’s recent rhetoric against > banker’s making exorbitant amounts of money. He > wants to punish the banks who already paid back > TARP and limit the compensation for bankers. Yes, > I think that has everything to do with it since > taxing those making over a million would include > the “fat cats” of wall street. Why don’t you > relax your slacks there buddy. And these banks would have been how profitable if they failed without the capital cushion of TARP? Where did the money come from that paid out many of these CDS whose counterparty was a TARP bank? And how exactly would BO ax these people, executive order? Congress has to approve this, as everyone knows the wouldnt, so its a nonstarter. My slacks are fine, and Im all for philosophical differences, but who exactly on his economic advisory board do you think would allow him to even consider this?
BizBanker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BizBanker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > steph96 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > What about the small business owner that > pays > > > > himself via the profits that his company > > makes > > > (s > > > > corp)? I don’t think he’s going to take a > > cut > > > in > > > > after-tax pay, while continuing to run his > > > > business as usual. Instead, he’ll get rid > of > > > an > > > > employee or two. The business owner will > be > > > > unaffected while the workers are the ones > > that > > > are > > > > impacted. > > > > > > > > It’s not necessarily the wealthy that are > > > impacted > > > > by tax increases on the wealthy…And there > > are > > > a > > > > hell of a lot of small business owners that > > > fall > > > > in the $250+ category. > > > > > > > > > Ok so using this example, the marginal tax > rate > > > goes from 36% to 39% over 250k right? Laying > > > someone off would take away from his > deductable > > > expenses and therefore increase his tax > > liability. > > > Say he makes 350k and his 100k is at risk of > > the > > > increased tax. He pays an extra 3k a year. > Lay > > off > > > an employee for say 30k and his taxable > income > > > goes up to 380k and an extra 39% on the 30k. > > This > > > doesnt hold water for small busines owners at > > all > > > and it irritates me when I hear this from > > > Congress. For large companies, I get the > point > > > that massive layoffs to decrease expense and > > > continue consistent dividend payments, but > this > > is > > > just a BS arguement for small business > owners. > > > > > > But by laying off that worker, he has > effectively > > avoided the tax. In fact, he is really no worse > > off than before. He probably has a little more > > work to do himself since the worker is gone, > and > > he is paying more tax, but he is still rich > after > > the tax increase. What about the 30k/year > worker? > > He/she is f-in out of a job and probably > > struggling to make the rent next month. > > > Did you understand my post? It doesnt look like it > from this response. If he could do without the > worker, he would regardless of the tax. I said > that to avoid the extra 3%, if he makes a business > decision like this he would increase his income > and be exposed to more taxes as the extra income > would be taxable. Before tax increase: On at-risk 100k, he pays 36k in tax, pockets 64k. After tax increase and layoff: On at-risk 130k, he pays 50.7k in tax, pockets 79.3k. So yes, he does pay more tax. If this is all you’re saying, then great. I agree.
Can you agree that he would LIKE to do it, whether or not he could actually get it passed is another story. I just have a fundamental problem with Obama going after banks right now since many have turned profitable and paid back TARP when the auto industry who received bailouts has not turned profitable and has no intentions of even beginning to repay the bailout funds. Why is he attacking banks now? Is it because they have now started to make money again? Look at his voters, I’d argue that more of his voters come from Detroit than Wall Street. This is purely political, punish the minority and let the unions in Detroit get off the hook so he can hold on to his voters.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BizBanker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > topher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > BizBanker Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > steph96 Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > What about the small business owner that > > pays > > > > > himself via the profits that his company > > > makes > > > > (s > > > > > corp)? I don’t think he’s going to take > a > > > cut > > > > in > > > > > after-tax pay, while continuing to run > his > > > > > business as usual. Instead, he’ll get > rid > > of > > > > an > > > > > employee or two. The business owner will > > be > > > > > unaffected while the workers are the ones > > > that > > > > are > > > > > impacted. > > > > > > > > > > It’s not necessarily the wealthy that are > > > > impacted > > > > > by tax increases on the wealthy…And > there > > > are > > > > a > > > > > hell of a lot of small business owners > that > > > > fall > > > > > in the $250+ category. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok so using this example, the marginal tax > > rate > > > > goes from 36% to 39% over 250k right? > Laying > > > > someone off would take away from his > > deductable > > > > expenses and therefore increase his tax > > > liability. > > > > Say he makes 350k and his 100k is at risk > of > > > the > > > > increased tax. He pays an extra 3k a year. > > Lay > > > off > > > > an employee for say 30k and his taxable > > income > > > > goes up to 380k and an extra 39% on the > 30k. > > > This > > > > doesnt hold water for small busines owners > at > > > all > > > > and it irritates me when I hear this from > > > > Congress. For large companies, I get the > > point > > > > that massive layoffs to decrease expense > and > > > > continue consistent dividend payments, but > > this > > > is > > > > just a BS arguement for small business > > owners. > > > > > > > > > But by laying off that worker, he has > > effectively > > > avoided the tax. In fact, he is really no > worse > > > off than before. He probably has a little > more > > > work to do himself since the worker is gone, > > and > > > he is paying more tax, but he is still rich > > after > > > the tax increase. What about the 30k/year > > worker? > > > He/she is f-in out of a job and probably > > > struggling to make the rent next month. > > > > > > Did you understand my post? It doesnt look like > it > > from this response. If he could do without the > > worker, he would regardless of the tax. I said > > that to avoid the extra 3%, if he makes a > business > > decision like this he would increase his income > > and be exposed to more taxes as the extra > income > > would be taxable. > > > Before tax increase: On at-risk 100k, he pays 36k > in tax, pockets 64k. > After tax increase and layoff: On at-risk 130k, he > pays 50.7k in tax, pockets 79.3k. > > So yes, he does pay more tax. If this is all > you’re saying, then great. I agree. Yes, and taking it a step further, say he loses 60k in revenue from that one employee, or whatever number you choose. So that might drive down his NI in the end. The first case is simply assuming an SGA expense with no correlation to revenues. My point is that the straight “if business pays more tax, people get laid off” just isnt really valid for these busineses. The case above where Kevin said he would have to cut salary, that is most likely a more apt description. It is a distribution problem, I just dont see the raise tax = lose same $$ amount in jobs as a valid arguement.
if you make 250k and live in NYC, have 2 kids… GOOD LUCK
comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you make 250k and live in NYC, have 2 kids… > GOOD LUCK I know people making less than that with kids in NYC, they’re okay. Okay, enough b!itching. What’s the solution? We have a big deficit. Spending: what spending can/do you cut asap? Revenue: who do you tax to bring in more cash?
kevinf12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree it wont cause people to shut their > business down. In fact, I have a small business > and I told the girl in NJ (employee) that if my > taxes go up that she will be getting a pay > reduction to help offset. Is she hot?
^That’s what we should really be focusing on here, thanks PTC!
@Biz:“And these banks would have been how profitable if they failed without the capital cushion of TARP? Where did the money come from that paid out many of these CDS whose counterparty was a TARP bank?” The money came from the only source of funds that the government has, TAXES. And as has been clearly pointed out by both sides in this debate the majority of those were paid by the wealthy folks in this country. So really it was the rich bailing out the rich so they could stay rich. The other 50% of the country that has an effective rate in the single digits needs to shut the fukk up thinking that they did anything to help Wall Street. Fing ignorant simpletons!
CzarHC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you agree that he would LIKE to do it, whether > or not he could actually get it passed is another > story. I just have a fundamental problem with > Obama going after banks right now since many have > turned profitable and paid back TARP when the auto > industry who received bailouts has not turned > profitable and has no intentions of even beginning > to repay the bailout funds. Why is he attacking > banks now? Is it because they have now started to > make money again? Look at his voters, I’d argue > that more of his voters come from Detroit than > Wall Street. This is purely political, punish the > minority and let the unions in Detroit get off the > hook so he can hold on to his voters. No he wouldnt like to do it, its just stupid. If you followed the election closely, you would know that BO brought in more money from WS than McCain, in fact it was one of his biggest industry lobbying sectors. And on the voting, 88% of people with net worth of 1M-10M were for McCain and 66% of people with net worth > 10M were for Obama. GS was one of his biggest contributers. This doesnt negate the fact that GS was paid out on CDS with TAXPAYER money from AIG. And now they want to put it in their pocket and say thanks and he is asking for some give back, and he’s a communist? Man those rich people must have been pretty stupid.
Goldman paid back TARP early with 23% interest
@Biz: “his doesnt negate the fact that GS was paid out on CDS with TAXPAYER money from AIG. And now they want to put it in their pocket and say thanks and he is asking for some give back, and he’s a communist?” No this just makes him an idiot, if he wanted more from the banks he should have negotiated a better deal with GS (see Buffett), and others, when he was in a position of power. Giving them free money was D-U-M-B and it was only rational of them to take it on those terms (especially since they were badly in need and taking it on much worse terms, again reference Buffett).
@Adavydov Good point, but again this is a democracy. Even when the minority pays more in taxes, they dont get to decide what the government should and shouldnt do. They are at the mercy of the majority, so I think it would be in their best interest to at least appear to care. A student has the same voting power as Lloyd Blankfein. Plus their paper networth would have been worth jack and we would be at the mercy of the gold hoggers should the monetary system crumble.
^True, we just need to do enough to keep them passive enough so that they won’t revolt. That is what American Idol and KFC are for.