Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Spreading the wealth around...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| No, it won't be worth it for me to run the business, so the people who I employ on a part time/as-needed basis will have to find work with someone else. |
Anonymous
But will Joe and the other Six-packs understand that? (sounds like a band, Joe n the 6-packs) |
Anonymous
|
Ok, 14:59 poster, I am trying to understand, but don't think what you are saying makes sense. In order to be affected by the Obama tax rate increase at all, your business would have to be netting (after you pay all your employees, rent, all of that) at least $250,000 a year. If that is the case, the amount you would pay on the amount over $250K per year (and not on any amount below that) would increase by a few percent from what it is now. Right now you pay taxes on your income from the business and that doesn't put you out of business. Right now you pay higher taxes as the amount you make goes up on the higher amounts and that doesn't put you out of business. I cannot see for the life of me how changing just the rate that you pay on that last 250K plus could make it not make sense for you to operate your business that by definition brings in more than $250K in annual income to you. The Obama plan is basically returning to the tax rates in effect under Clinton and I don't recall small businesses being unable to operate then.
I understand that people want to keep more of their money and my family will definitely have to pay more in taxes under Obama (we make substantially more than the 250K). But I think it is simply inaccurate to say that this would in any reasonable way make people be unable to keep operating businesses. If you can explain in a simple way why you think you would have to close your business, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. |
Anonymous
| Since when is a "refundable tax credit" going to households that don't even owe any taxes a "tax cut"??? If 40 percent of households owe no income tax, how can 95 percent be getting a tax cut? Must one include payroll taxes to justify this definition? And if so, wouldn't Obama effectively be cutting payroll tax revenues at a time when we know Social Security is heading for trouble? I am not saying that redistribution of income is bad, per se, but I have a real problem with calling "welfare" a tax cut. Call it what it is and then convince voters that it is needed. |
Anonymous
Just about any business segment facing a tax credit, environmental rule change, or other regulation has said the same thing. The sky is falling, we'll have to close up shop. Talk to gas stations when they had to put in vapor recovery systems. In my home state, they said they would all close. They never did. Same goes for smoke stack scrubbers, closing real estate loopholes, you name it. So stomp around all you want. You are not going to shoot yourself in the foot and close up shop just because your tax rate went up a little bit. That's like taking your ball and going home, except you don't get to keep the ball. |
Anonymous
|
This is exactly the problem. Jeff writes in glowing terms of Obama's economic plan, saying it will "unlock the drive, ingenuity, and innovation of the American people." So these innovative, hardworking Americans will achieve success, and their reward is to "spread the wealth"--to give what THEY have earned and what THEY have worked for back to the government, who will decide what to do with the money.
Americans are extremely generous people. Let them keep what they earn and make their own decisions about what to do with their money. |
Anonymous
|
"Let them keep what they earn and make their own decisions about what to do with their money. "
That is very nice until they all start losing their jobs and not earning anything. Bush ran up a trillion $$ on Irag which was not only a big strategic mistake but has hurt the economy. Imagine if that money could have been spent on infrastructure which produced jobs, investing into energy retrofits for the auto companies and building markets, healthcare or even tax credits. You would have fewer multi-millionaires from the private defense contractors so their wealth yes would have been spread to middle income people. What if there had been better regulation of the financial markets? Yes, fewer CEOs and bankers would have made multi-millions in the boom but our economy wouldn't be in the tank. |
Anonymous
Individuals cannot achieve success without a supportive environment. This is why there are so few billionaires in Afghanistan. Good infrastructure, security, a well-educated populace, access to technology and raw materials, functioning payment and credit systems and thousands of other factors are all essential to each individual's success. The success of some individuals cannot therefore be ascribed purely to THEIR hard work. To ask wealthy individuals to contribut a small amount more to support the country that gave them this opportunity is therefore fair enough. They will also get the benefit of living in a better country that doesn't suffer from chronic under-investment. A couple of examples - universal healthcare will reduce the risk of infectious diseases for everyone. Improved early-childhood support services can have a major impact on reducing crime down the road. |
Anonymous
| I am really tired of the poster on this board who has a small business and thinks she's so fab and that government is "the worst transferer of wealth". She pops up all the time. Grow up and stop being so greedy. |
Anonymous
Where do you get this 40% of households not owing income tax? I'd like some clarification on this point. |
Anonymous
MSM has really given Obama a pass on this part. It isn't a tax cut - back in the 70's it was called welfare. I am not arguing on the merits, just the syntax. A tax cut by definition is a reduction of the tax you pay. You cannot further reduce zero taxes. |
Anonymous
Here is one source (Congressional Budget Office) among many. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf#page=6 And the highlighted question goes to the heart of the matter - you cannot refund a tax you don't pay. You can distribute it, take from the other 60% and spread it around, but it is not a tax cut. |
Anonymous
| Jeff, want to weigh in on this? We've been puzzling over this in my house too -- how the 40% of households that pay no federal income tax will get a tax cut. I can't find an explanation on the TPC site. |
Anonymous
|
14:32 here. Back to the OP's question: No, I don't think this will cause enough undecided voters to go for McCain, and it won't peel off any Obama voters. Do I wish Obama hadn't said it? Definitely. The far right has been waiting eagerly for him to slip and say something that would "reveal" him as a closet Marxist.
As far as taxes go, it seems likely that neither candidate's tax plan will come to fruition after he takes office. Given the state of the economy and the astonishing federal deficit -- the full extent of the latter probably being carefully concealed, as in the Reagan/Bush I era -- we are not going to see major tax cuts and we probably won't see major tax increases either. Obama or McCain will inherit a situation that is far graver than the one Bill Clinton found when he took office, and I'm sure both men know that. Just as Clinton had to postpone his tax cuts, I'm sure the new president will find he has to adjust his priorities to fit the fiscal reality that the current administration has created. Neither candidate is going to say that, of course, because honesty of that kind is never rewarded by the electorate -- think Walter Mondale -- but Obama and McCain are not naive enough to think the Bush Administration is being completely forthright about what the new president will find when he takes office. |
Anonymous
|