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 .
Damocles said:
So you are saying the government's commission rate is getting "cut"?

LOL. Again, it is silliness to say that keeping a budget item exactly the same is a "cut" or a "hike".

If my employer decided to keep my commission rate the same I didn't get a raise, but I didn't get a "cut". When my employers decided not to give me a raise in 2009, it was not a "cut" in pay.
Click to expand...


No, I'm using an analogy since y'all are so fond of them. Deciding not to give you a raise is one thing. If 10 years ago your compensation was set at $100,000 for 10 years and $125,000 each year thereafter and you boss told you today that you would only earn $100,000 next year you wouldn't have any trouble describing that as a cut.
 
NigelTufnel said:
OK, pretend you're the worker for a minute. How do you see it?
Click to expand...

I see it just like I said. If my commission stays the same to me nothing has changed.

If I want to play office politics and I know what is going on maybe I have to go kiss my bosses *ss for allowing me to keep my same commission rate and thank him for his work.

But if I do $100k in sales in 2010 (with a 25% commission) and bring home $25k and I do $100k in sales in 2011 (with a 25% commission) and bring home $25k I'm not seeing a difference.
 
Superfreak said:
Explain to us... how is it double talk?

Obama has two choices right now....

1) Keep tax rates as they are (he suggests doing so for those making $250k or less and raising those above $250k to pre 2001 levels)

2) Let the tax rates increase to pre-2001 levels.

those are his options (as we know he is not going to lower them)
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous doubletalk because Bush and congressional Republicans WITH DELIBERATION placed in their tax cuts an EXPIRATION DATE for the cuts knowing when they did so what said expiration date meant.

If Obama chooses to let the BUSH tax cuts expire as they were originally designed to do over a DECADE ago, then he is not raising taxes, he is merely letting tax law enacted a decade ago become law.

If Bush and congressional Republicans care so much for the middle class, then why didn't they make the cuts permanent? A gift, in perpetuity, to the middle class from Republicans and Bush.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Then it shouldn't take you very long to explain where I made my mistake...
Click to expand...

By assuming that there was a specific and deliberate intent on the part of the authors of the tax cut to make them expire. Those tax cuts had every liberal near me whining for years, and so a certain amount of compromise was needed.

It is now Obama's job to see them renewed. If he supports renewing them, then he can honestly say he supports middle class tax cuts. If not, then he should be honest and say he supports a tax hike. Not that difficult.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You're smarter than this.

Let's say that currently your commission rate in 2011 is set at 25% of sales. Let's say that tomorrow your boss tells that in 2011 your commission rate will be 20% of sales, not 25% of sales. Was your commissions rate cut?

The baseline is scheduled 2011 tax rates. Cutting the 2011 tax rates is a tax cut.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was cut in your scenario.

But to make your scenario an actual apples to apples comparison it would be....

My current commission rate is 25%. My Boss tells me that it is going to 20% in 2011 if he does not extend the current pay grid. He then tells me, I am going to extend the current pay grid and you will get 25% commission payout.

Did I get my commissions cut? Or did they STAY THE FUCKING SAME?

The BASELINE is WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY.... NOT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO 'POTENTIALLY BE' should nothing be done.

Like I stated.... run with your idea and see how many people buy that line of crap from the Dems.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's ridiculous doubletalk because Bush and congressional Republicans WITH DELIBERATION placed in their tax cuts an EXPIRATION DATE for the cuts knowing when they did so what said expiration date meant.

If Obama chooses to let the BUSH tax cuts expire as they were originally designed to do over a DECADE ago, then he is not raising taxes, he is merely letting tax law enacted a decade ago become law.

If Bush and congressional Republicans care so much for the middle class, then why didn't they make the cuts permanent? A gift, in perpetuity, to the middle class from Republicans and Bush.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yeah... because that is how people see this...

Hey... you are paying more in taxes, we could have stopped that from happening, but we chose not to.... because.... well... its Bush's fault
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, I'm using an analogy since y'all are so fond of them. Deciding not to give you a raise is one thing. If 10 years ago your compensation was set at $100,000 for 10 years and $125,000 each year thereafter and you boss told you today that you would only earn $100,000 next year you wouldn't have any trouble describing that as a cut.
Click to expand...

THIS is why Dems are so friggin stupid fiscally. IT IS NOT A CUT. You just ARE NOT GETTING AN INCREASE. YOUR COMPENSATION STAYS THE SAME.

Budget for 'x' is 100mm, Budget for 'x' is promised to go up by 7%... Budget for 'x' goes up instead by 5%... Dems scream... 'They CUT SPENDING to x!!! Those evil Reps!'

If spending INCREASES, it is an INCREASE
If Tax rates STAY THE SAME AS THEY ARE TODAY, it is NOT A CUT

The baseline (to everyone but fiscally ignorant Dems) is what is happening TODAY. Not what MIGHT happen next year or what MIGHT have been promised by a politician.

People look at it from a 'how does it compare to TODAY'... am I paying more, less or the same.

Only a fiscally ignorant Dem parrot/lemming would believe that the exact same tax brackets in 2010 and 2011 is equal to a 'cut'
 
One fallacy worth noting is tax cuts or increases (the percentages being considered) for business owners making over $250,000/yr does not influence job creation.

Business owners do not say to themselves, "Gee, I paid $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 less tax this year so I'll hire a new employee."

They will only hire a new employee if they believe they will make more money. If they pay an employee $25,000/yr they have to make more than $25,000 plus their benefits. If, say, the total cost will be $40,000 then the company has to make $40,000 plus. If the company makes $60,000 they will pay tax on the extra $20,000 which is their net profit.

So, if the tax rate is 30% the company will pay $6,000 on the $20,000 profit. If the tax rate is 40% the company will pay $8,000, leaving a net profit of $14,000 and $12,000, respectively.

The company will be looking at the $14,000 or $12,000, not the $2,000 difference when deciding to hire a new employee, meaning the tax rate has little to do with whether or not they hire someone.
 
apple0154 said:
One fallacy worth noting is tax cuts or increases (the percentages being considered) for business owners making over $250,000/yr does not influence job creation.

Business owners do not say to themselves, "Gee, I paid $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 less tax this year so I'll hire a new employee."

They will only hire a new employee if they believe they will make more money. If they pay an employee $25,000/yr they have to make more than $25,000 plus their benefits. If, say, the total cost will be $40,000 then the company has to make $40,000 plus. If the company makes $60,000 they will pay tax on the extra $20,000 which is their net profit.

So, if the tax rate is 30% the company will pay $6,000 on the $20,000 profit. If the tax rate is 40% the company will pay $8,000, leaving a net profit of $14,000 and $12,000, respectively.

The company will be looking at the $14,000 or $12,000, not the $2,000 difference when deciding to hire a new employee, meaning the tax rate has little to do with whether or not they hire someone.
Click to expand...

and people wonder why liberals are idiots fiscally....
 
apple0154 said:
One fallacy worth noting is tax cuts or increases (the percentages being considered) for business owners making over $250,000/yr does not influence job creation.

Business owners do not say to themselves, "Gee, I paid $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 less tax this year so I'll hire a new employee."

They will only hire a new employee if they believe they will make more money. If they pay an employee $25,000/yr they have to make more than $25,000 plus their benefits. If, say, the total cost will be $40,000 then the company has to make $40,000 plus. If the company makes $60,000 they will pay tax on the extra $20,000 which is their net profit.

So, if the tax rate is 30% the company will pay $6,000 on the $20,000 profit. If the tax rate is 40% the company will pay $8,000, leaving a net profit of $14,000 and $12,000, respectively.

The company will be looking at the $14,000 or $12,000, not the $2,000 difference when deciding to hire a new employee, meaning the tax rate has little to do with whether or not they hire someone.
Click to expand...

Thanks Canadian economist. Much appreciated insight.
 
apple0154 said:
One fallacy worth noting is tax cuts or increases (the percentages being considered) for business owners making over $250,000/yr does not influence job creation.

Business owners do not say to themselves, "Gee, I paid $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000 less tax this year so I'll hire a new employee."

They will only hire a new employee if they believe they will make more money. If they pay an employee $25,000/yr they have to make more than $25,000 plus their benefits. If, say, the total cost will be $40,000 then the company has to make $40,000 plus. If the company makes $60,000 they will pay tax on the extra $20,000 which is their net profit.

So, if the tax rate is 30% the company will pay $6,000 on the $20,000 profit. If the tax rate is 40% the company will pay $8,000, leaving a net profit of $14,000 and $12,000, respectively.

The company will be looking at the $14,000 or $12,000, not the $2,000 difference when deciding to hire a new employee, meaning the tax rate has little to do with whether or not they hire someone.
Click to expand...


Here goes another effin blood pressure pill .......
 
Income tax cuts have no bearing on jobs in america at all when idiot globalization is in play.

They may just hire more overseas. Big woop.

We need protectionism. it's the only thing that will save the nation.

All other proposals are distractions created to keep our eyes off the ball.

Come on, neocon fucksticks, let's do this one more time so everyone can see me win again.

i dare you to argue with me.

Bring it, whores.
 
Superfreak said:
and people wonder why liberals are idiots fiscally....
Click to expand...

Of course there's folks who think small business owners are altruistic so when they do their income tax and see they saved money say, "Whoopee! I saved $5,000 this year. I think I'll hire someone so I can give it to them."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top