Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?

Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Its all in the phrasing, its the same as going after Kerry because he voted against funding the troops before he voted against it.

The R's pulled this type of pathetic crap all the time and got away with it..... Now when Democrats try it, they call it pathetic.... Silly. For some reason it works when Republicans play this game, it does not when Democrats do it.
 
Jarod said:
Its all in the phrasing, its the same as going after Kerry because he voted against funding the troops before he voted against it.

The R's pulled this type of pathetic crap all the time and got away with it..... Now when Democrats try it, they call it pathetic.... Silly. For some reason it works when Republicans play this game, it does not when Democrats do it.
Click to expand...

Kerry voted against funding the troops before he voted against it? Think you might want to correct the wording on that one.

And yes it is stupid to comment that someone will get a tax cut and pay the same tax rate because that's normally what you think of when you hear tax cut right?
 
cawacko said:
No, I love to laugh. He was trying to make a (not very good) point
Click to expand...
Actually he made an excellent point, the fact that, other then Damo, all the responses to his post were Ad Homs is a strong indicator that his point was spot on. Tax, wages and benefits are just part of the over all calculations of cost a business owner/operator must determine and, as he correctly pointed out, the decision is not based on cost alone but on the cost vs benefit calculation. The cost of increased taxes is just a small part of that cost/benefit calculation as he correctly pointed out.
 
apple0154 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

yet more evidence the left lemmings are morons when it comes to economics and fiscal issues.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually he made an excellent point, the fact that, other then Damo, all the responses to his post were Ad Homs is a strong indicator that his point was spot on. Tax, wages and benefits are just part of the over all calculations of cost a business owner/operator must determine and, as he correctly pointed out, the decision is not based on cost alone but on the cost vs benefit calculation. The cost of increased taxes is just a small part of that cost/benefit calculation as he correctly pointed out.
Click to expand...

While it is indeed a PART of the decision making process, the part he fails to comprehend is all other parts being equal (meaning they remain the same regardless of income tax rates) higher taxes mean LESS money the business owner has to pay in terms of salary etc...

He also ignores the fact that the benefits of an employee are not normally immediate to the company bottom line because of the learning curve of the job. This is not always the case, but most times the new employee is not going to be as productive as one with experience.

When you factor in the uncertainty, a small business owner presented with the fact that they may pay higher taxes in the future will typically hold off on hiring until the uncertainty becomes clear. Given that any freshman taking Econ 101 can tell you that raising taxes in a recessionary environment will retard growth of the economy, most business owners (small and large) will put a halt on hiring due to the expense of training and more importantly the expense of firing an employee.

So if a business owner knows:

1) Hiring a new employee will require training to get that employee up to speed

2) Taxes are going up

3) Tax increases retard growth

4) retarded growth could impact his/her bottom line

5) lower bottom line means potential layoffs

6) firing employee is expensive

then that business owner is NOT going to be hiring in the above environment
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually he made an excellent point, the fact that, other then Damo, all the responses to his post were Ad Homs is a strong indicator that his point was spot on. Tax, wages and benefits are just part of the over all calculations of cost a business owner/operator must determine and, as he correctly pointed out, the decision is not based on cost alone but on the cost vs benefit calculation. The cost of increased taxes is just a small part of that cost/benefit calculation as he correctly pointed out.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mott. I forgot I was discussing matters with a right wing, kindergarten class. :palm:

Their argument is the same as Joe the Plumber's. Joe was saying a proposed tax increase, approximately $800.00 on a net income of $275,000, would discourage him from buying a business. How can anyone have an intelligent conversation with such individuals?
 
apple0154 said:
Thanks, Mott. I forgot I was discussing matters with a right wing, kindergarten class. :palm:

Their argument is the same as Joe the Plumber's. Joe was saying a proposed tax increase, approximately $800.00 on a net income of $275,000, would discourage him from buying a business. How can anyone have an intelligent conversation with such individuals?
Click to expand...

You're switching from buying a business to hiring employees. Which are you talking about so us kindergartners can follow along?
 
Damo is one of the few Right Wingers Ive ever known who does not depend mostly on Ad Hom attacks and silly "hide the ball" attempts at argueing.
 
Jarod said:
Damo is one of the few Right Wingers Ive ever known who does not depend mostly on Ad Hom attacks and silly "hide the ball" attempts at argueing.
Click to expand...
Damo's not a right winger. He's more of a right leaning libertarian. SF isn't really a right winger either. He's just a garden variety asshole with a spastic colon. ;)
 
Superfreak said:
While it is indeed a PART of the decision making process, the part he fails to comprehend is all other parts being equal (meaning they remain the same regardless of income tax rates) higher taxes mean LESS money the business owner has to pay in terms of salary etc...
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that. A business owner is not going to hire someone unless that person is "self-supporting", meaning bringing in sufficient revenue to cover his/her salary and benefits. The tax is levied on the profit, after all the employee expenses have been met, so taxes are not a primary consideration.

The taxes are levied on the profit the company/owner realizes from the employee. I explained this in a prior post. If the viability of hiring an employee rests on a 5 or 6 percent increase in taxes on the profit he/she generates for the company then the company can't afford an extra employee. No business person is going to cut it that fine. If an entrepreneur is determining the necessity of hiring employees based on a 5 or 6 percent increase/decrease in the profits they will generate I highly suggest that entrepreneur get the hell out of business before it's too late!

He also ignores the fact that the benefits of an employee are not normally immediate to the company bottom line because of the learning curve of the job. This is not always the case, but most times the new employee is not going to be as productive as one with experience.
Click to expand...

Again, we come back to the 5 or 6 percent increase in taxes. While a new employee may require a short training period no decent business person is going to base a "hire/don't hire" decision on a 5 or 6 percent spread. Simply stated if the company/entrepreneur can not afford an employee due to paying an additional 6% in taxes they can't afford an employee. Normal fluctuations, from the economy to the employee's health, will have a much greater impact on profits than the 6% tax increase.

When you factor in the uncertainty, a small business owner presented with the fact that they may pay higher taxes in the future will typically hold off on hiring until the uncertainty becomes clear.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! Again, 6% is not going to be a determining factor.

The economy. The training (taking a chance on an employee's ability to do the job). The expense of firing an employee. Those factors have a bearing on profits, far above the 6%.

Either it's worthwhile to hire an employee or it isn't and no employer is going to base that decision on the slight increase in taxes being discussed. That's why I previously said some folks must think small business is altruistic if they believe it when businesses say taxes prevent them from hiring more employees.

In this economy the tax savings are going to go directly into the entrepreneur's pocket. No entrepreneur/small business is going to say, "Hey, we save on taxes. Let's take a chance and hire an employee."

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Superfreak said:
While it is indeed a PART of the decision making process, the part he fails to comprehend is all other parts being equal (meaning they remain the same regardless of income tax rates) higher taxes mean LESS money the business owner has to pay in terms of salary etc...

He also ignores the fact that the benefits of an employee are not normally immediate to the company bottom line because of the learning curve of the job. This is not always the case, but most times the new employee is not going to be as productive as one with experience.

When you factor in the uncertainty, a small business owner presented with the fact that they may pay higher taxes in the future will typically hold off on hiring until the uncertainty becomes clear. Given that any freshman taking Econ 101 can tell you that raising taxes in a recessionary environment will retard growth of the economy, most business owners (small and large) will put a halt on hiring due to the expense of training and more importantly the expense of firing an employee.

So if a business owner knows:

1) Hiring a new employee will require training to get that employee up to speed

2) Taxes are going up

3) Tax increases retard growth

4) retarded growth could impact his/her bottom line

5) lower bottom line means potential layoffs

6) firing employee is expensive

then that business owner is NOT going to be hiring in the above environment
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top