Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yet more evidence the left lemmings are morons when it comes to economics and fiscal issues.
Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
yet more evidence the left lemmings are morons when it comes to economics and fiscal issues.
klaatu
Fusionist
You know what? I really do need to start meditating .....
My wife meditates while we are having Sex ...
ahahahaha, you are funny!
apple0154
MEOW
Sure, let's listen to more Joe the Plumbers telling us they won't buy a business if they have to pay $800.00 in additional tax on an income of $275,000.
I have news. Someone will.
cawacko
Well-known member
Sure, let's listen to more Joe the Plumbers telling us they won't buy a business if they have to pay $800.00 in additional tax on an income of $275,000.
I have news. Someone will.
who are the folks that think small businesses are so altruistic?
apple0154
MEOW
Apparently the folks who believe keeping the tax cuts will encourage the small entrepreneur to hire someone.
cawacko
Well-known member
Why did I even bother to ask?
But I would. Because it isn't a cut nor is it a valid analogy. There was no contract between these taxpayers to increase the government's pay after a certain period, only a budgeting gimmick. If I was stupid enough to believe any 10 year budget plan from my employer without a contract I would still not count it as a "cut" as my pay would be the same. The question would be, "Where is my raise?!" not "Why did you 'cut' my pay?!"
apple0154
MEOW
I wondered the same thing myself.
The difference between the current tax rate and the rate that will apply if the cut isn't extended will not be the deciding factor on whether a person buys a business or hires someone.
It isn't that they are altruistic, it is that they are 75% of our economy. It is stupid to think they'll continue to hire in an environment where they cannot be assured of business costs like taxes from one moment to the next and foolish to believe that hiking taxes on them will get them to hire anybody.
cawacko
Well-known member
I've also never heard anyone call small businesses altruistic.
Yes, I was trying to support you on that. I didn't make that part clear. I don't know of anybody who thinks small businesses are altruistic.
apple0154
MEOW
Before an employer hires someone they have to be sure there is sufficient work for the employee. In other words they have to ensure the employee will pay for himself. That means the employee has to generate sufficient revenue for the company to pay his salary and benefits. The employer does not pay tax on that money as it goes to the employee. It is not personal income for the employer.
After the employee generates money and his salary and benefits are paid out of that money then the remaining money is the employer's income. That is the money on which the employer pays taxes.
So, let's say an entrepreneur makes $250,000/yr. and he pays a certain percentage in tax. He hires an employee and that employee generates $100,00 in revenue while the employee's wages and benefits equal $50,000/yr. The employer nets the remaining $50,000 and even if it's taxed at a rate 10% higher than his $250,000 the employer still makes money.
How would that stop anyone from hiring an employee? An employee has to generate income for the owner before the owner has to pay tax so why would a tax increase prevent someone from hiring unless, of course, the tax increase was astronomical.
Good Luck
New member
Liberalese is an amazing language. Pass legislation which would prevent tax rates from going up is a tax cut. (I remember in 1998 how they claimed they were giving middle-income people a "tax cut" because they reduced from their original plan how much they increased taxes.)
Tell us, oh democratic wearers of donkey butts: how is extending (or making permanent) tax rates WRITTEN AND PASSED BY REPUBLICANS a "tax cut"? Why is the idea of making the CURRENT rates permanent "OBAMA's middle class tax cuts", when they were originally passed at the objection of the majority of democrats?
Also, WHY should we count the 2000 tax rates as our "baseline" instead of the CURRENT rates? The rates under Clinton changed 10 YEARS AGO!! How is that supposed to be "baseline"? Because if you accept curren rates as baseline, you'd have to admit democrats are simply following the REPUBLICAN lead of letting middle class people keep more of their money? You'd have to admit the claiom that the cuts were "only for the rich" was a lie?
It never fails to amaze me the level of lies the left will swallow whole and come back for more.
Tell us, oh democratic wearers of donkey butts: how is extending (or making permanent) tax rates WRITTEN AND PASSED BY REPUBLICANS a "tax cut"? Why is the idea of making the CURRENT rates permanent "OBAMA's middle class tax cuts", when they were originally passed at the objection of the majority of democrats?
Also, WHY should we count the 2000 tax rates as our "baseline" instead of the CURRENT rates? The rates under Clinton changed 10 YEARS AGO!! How is that supposed to be "baseline"? Because if you accept curren rates as baseline, you'd have to admit democrats are simply following the REPUBLICAN lead of letting middle class people keep more of their money? You'd have to admit the claiom that the cuts were "only for the rich" was a lie?
It never fails to amaze me the level of lies the left will swallow whole and come back for more.
cawacko
Well-known member
Obama obviously took over a war that had been going on for seven years and wasn't exactly at its high point when he took office. He made some decisions to change strategy a bit and thus showed he was in command. So right now it really is his war in the sense he's in control right?
This hole parcing of the tax cuts started with Crashk playing that CNN video claiming Hannity was lying by saying Obama would raise taxes, aka not renewing the Bush tax cuts.
Reverend Bones
Pikachu is of the devil!
Taxes are of the Devil!!!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Your mom is of the Devil.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Actually, the taxes are not really the big problem in hiring. It is the cost of mandated benefits. The portion of SSI and other insurance the employer has to pay for, the impending cost of 'termination' has to also be considered... how much will it cost you to fire this person if they don't work out? You have to factor in the "family leave" days they get, the "sick" days they have to be allowed, and all of the cumulative things that cost the employer money to hire you, and maybe even to fire you... it is all considered and factored, and if the 'need' for that person is not essential, it's just not done these days.
Taxes are part of the 'uncertainty' problem, health care responsibilities are also a biggie to most, they can't make sense of whatever HCR law we passed, the people who voted on it couldn't even understand it! Creating new jobs is not going to happen until we start taking steps to encourage growth. Through expansion of business, come hiring... but why are we not expanding? It's a cumulative thing, I think. Consumer confidence, uncertainty of pretty much everything, from health care costs to new taxes, to wars and potential mega-disasters, and why is this the case?
Apparently, it is because Barack Obama thinks we deserve it.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That was a rational, factual and logical argument and if I know the conservatives on this board as well as I do I can just about guarantee that their response will be in the form of an ad hom.