On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”
You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.
Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.
But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.
The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.
For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.
Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:
The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.
The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”
And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.
And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.
So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.
Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...
As soon as our elected officials start performing their duties responsibly, we can talk about increasing my duty.
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.
How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?
Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...
also, answer this question please. why would any voter vote for anyone who is going to do things against the voter's own interests? you act like your average voter is all altruistic and thinks, "hmmm, i am cutting my own throat by voting for romney, but if it is for the betterment of the country so be it.." people do not vote that way. i am sorry, but they don't. people are selfish by nature... why is it such a compliment these days for someone to be called selfless? because sadly selflessness is not a virtue that most people possess these days.
and selfish voters have been around forever. for you to say that obama created that or fostered that is simply laughable.
and by the way, there are articles all over the wed stating that romney's plan will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class. here is one of those articles.
Petulant children? I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes. It's the definition of fair that causes the debate. But, why should someone pay MORE taxes just so someone else can feel good? Increasing taxes to a family making $250 isn't solving anything without significant spending decreases. So, why should they be the only ones that feel "pain?" Shouldn't everyone share in that? Or is $80 to $100,000 in taxes not enough for 1 family to contribute? You want more? How much more? And for what ends? So, we can EXPAND welfare rolls instead of creating jobs?
Again, study Giuliani's NY and you will see a path to lower welfare rolls and higher employment that the liberals lead by David Dinkins explicitally said was impossible. Then, you can come talk to be about higher taxes. But, to throw good money after bad is pointless.
And, to cut you off at the pass - yes, there are folks that TRULY need help. And, they should be helped. Where that line is, like the definition of fair is up for debate. But, when you have the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE in 30 years AND unemployment above 8%, something ain't workin'. And, it's not the other guy's fault. And, even if you believe it is, something should be headed in the right direction. We shouldn't be left with FEWER jobs than 4 years ago.
As for Romney's admission that he would need to raise taxes on the middle class - how else do you plan on closing the deficit? So, his telling the truth is the issue. Obama hides the truth or is unwilling to make the tough decisions. It's easy to say - let's take money from the millionaires (defined as folks making $750,000 less than million :? ) and give it to YOU (general you, not picking on you) is the easy way to win an election. But, not an easy way to keep promises or solve anything.
But, yes - I personally look at things for the greater good. Now, obviously, it's colored by my own humastic personal issues and view of the world. But, I don't just pick someone because I like what they say. I look at what their true goals are (e.g. - did anyone that voted for Obama truly believe he was closing Guantanamo? If you did - I have a bridge for sale), and determine what is good for the vast majority of the country (you are never going to satisfy everyone realistically, but how close can you come?). If I have to pay a little more taxes, then fine. But, just to simply ask "rich" folks for taxes with no real job creation as a result, is silly. It doesn't do anything other than make folks feel better that they are not as far "behind" as they were before they took their money. I don't give a shit if Zuckerberg is rich beyond our wildest imaginations. Taking another $120,000 a year from him isn't changing his life, my life, your life or the welfare recipient's life.
Self centeredness is what got us deeper in the hole. Trying to have the government be everything to everybody is what continues to dig us deeper. You said who wouldn't folks be selfish? I told you why. I agreed they aren't but you somehow still turned that into a point of argument. I'm arguing for folks to look at the overall picture because, if that looks better, it will be better for (most) everyone. By looking at your own immediate help (e.g. bailout), the (not so) long term ends up being worse not better (as shown by the current state of employment after the bailouts).
The funny thing is, I'm not a big supporter of Romney. I do like the fact that his resume at least looks decent compared to a community organizing failed President. But, to be honest, I can't sit here and tell you he's the solution either. I just know what isn't.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.
and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.
Petulant children? I'm not against everyone paying their fair share of taxes. It's the definition of fair that causes the debate. But, why should someone pay MORE taxes just so someone else can feel good? Increasing taxes to a family making $250 isn't solving anything without significant spending decreases. So, why should they be the only ones that feel "pain?" Shouldn't everyone share in that? Or is $80 to $100,000 in taxes not enough for 1 family to contribute? You want more? How much more? And for what ends? So, we can EXPAND welfare rolls instead of creating jobs?
Again, study Giuliani's NY and you will see a path to lower welfare rolls and higher employment that the liberals lead by David Dinkins explicitally said was impossible. Then, you can come talk to be about higher taxes. But, to throw good money after bad is pointless.
And, to cut you off at the pass - yes, there are folks that TRULY need help. And, they should be helped. Where that line is, like the definition of fair is up for debate. But, when you have the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE in 30 years AND unemployment above 8%, something ain't workin'. And, it's not the other guy's fault. And, even if you believe it is, something should be headed in the right direction. We shouldn't be left with FEWER jobs than 4 years ago.
As for Romney's admission that he would need to raise taxes on the middle class - how else do you plan on closing the deficit? So, his telling the truth is the issue. Obama hides the truth or is unwilling to make the tough decisions. It's easy to say - let's take money from the millionaires (defined as folks making $750,000 less than million :? ) and give it to YOU (general you, not picking on you) is the easy way to win an election. But, not an easy way to keep promises or solve anything.
But, yes - I personally look at things for the greater good. Now, obviously, it's colored by my own humastic personal issues and view of the world. But, I don't just pick someone because I like what they say. I look at what their true goals are (e.g. - did anyone that voted for Obama truly believe he was closing Guantanamo? If you did - I have a bridge for sale), and determine what is good for the vast majority of the country (you are never going to satisfy everyone realistically, but how close can you come?). If I have to pay a little more taxes, then fine. But, just to simply ask "rich" folks for taxes with no real job creation as a result, is silly. It doesn't do anything other than make folks feel better that they are not as far "behind" as they were before they took their money. I don't give a shit if Zuckerberg is rich beyond our wildest imaginations. Taking another $120,000 a year from him isn't changing his life, my life, your life or the welfare recipient's life.
Self centeredness is what got us deeper in the hole. Trying to have the government be everything to everybody is what continues to dig us deeper. You said who wouldn't folks be selfish? I told you why. I agreed they aren't but you somehow still turned that into a point of argument. I'm arguing for folks to look at the overall picture because, if that looks better, it will be better for (most) everyone. By looking at your own immediate help (e.g. bailout), the (not so) long term ends up being worse not better (as shown by the current state of employment after the bailouts).
The funny thing is, I'm not a big supporter of Romney. I do like the fact that his resume at least looks decent compared to a community organizing failed President. But, to be honest, I can't sit here and tell you he's the solution either. I just know what isn't.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.
and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.
It's always someone else's fault. :roll:
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.
and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.
It's always someone else's fault. :roll:
Where are the jobs? The stage is perfectly set for the wonders of voodoo economics to magically rescue the nation from a near depression. Where are the jobs?
"The growing antagonism of the super-wealthy toward Obama can seem mystifying, since Obama has served the rich quite well. His Administration supported the seven-hundred-billion-dollar TARP rescue package for Wall Street, and resisted calls from the Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and others on the left, to nationalize the big banks in exchange for that largesse. At the end of September, the S. & P. 500, the benchmark U.S. stock index, had rebounded to just 6.9 per cent below its all-time pre-crisis high, on October 9, 2007.The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have found that ninety-three per cent of the gains during the 2009-10 recovery went to the top one per cent of earners. Those seated around the table at dinner with Al Gore had done even better: the top 0.01 per cent captured thirty-seven per cent of the total recovery pie, with a rebound in their incomes of more than twenty per cent, which amounted to an additional $4.2 million each."
Oh, that's how socialism works---all the wealth goes to the top. I got it now.
These cry-babies are fucking garbage. Its times like these that I wish I was religious so I can tell them to burn in hell. But hey, they deserve their $10, 20, 30 million salaries. I mean, at least they're not moochers like those in our military, those who are risking their lives in the desert and making a whopping average salary of $50,000. Hmmm.....$20,000,000 to run a hedge fund vs. $50,000 to risk their lives in the desert for...oil, no freedom, no oil........"God" Bless America.
still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.
How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.
There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.
Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.
Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.
In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?
Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?
still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.
How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.
Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.
Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.
Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.
Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.
This is obviously directed at Gimmiesometruth, but I have to point out that your statement in bold is incredibly erroneous.
Obama is starting a "war" by pointing out the fact that inequality exists in this society? That the top have seen dramatic gains in income over the past 3 decades while the middle class wages have been stagnant? That the middle-class is shrinking due to a trickle-down on steroids philosophy?
There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.
Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.
Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.
In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?
Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?
still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.
How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.
What is it about my question you are not getting Pandora??
Thanks for the read, the article goes on about increased turnout and %'s of african americans who voted for Obama. None of this is being disputed.
You mentioned that the main reason these people voted was because Obama was black - not policy, not ideology, hell not even because they liked the guy - but because he was black.
Nowhere in these links does it provide stats to back up that claim that you have made. Sheesh, how hard is it to get a straight answer from you.
Anyway, forget it, I don't care anymore. You made an outlandish statement, and then post after post attempted to derail and deflect the earlier point. You've shown your ignorance on the topic, and your petiness in ability to debate. I have better things to do.
These cry-babies are fucking garbage. Its times like these that I wish I was religious so I can tell them to burn in hell. But hey, they deserve their $10, 20, 30 million salaries. I mean, at least they're not moochers like those in our military, those who are risking their lives in the desert and making a whopping average salary of $50,000. Hmmm.....$20,000,000 to run a hedge fund vs. $50,000 to risk their lives in the desert for...oil, no freedom, no oil........"God" Bless America.
You seem to frame everything in terms of the tippy top folks. A few things about that:
1) Someone making $10 million will find plenty of places to hide their loot if you tax it at an extraordinary rate. You can call them what you want, but would you act any differently.
2) Taking money from those folks is not solving the economic problem. There's so few of them, and see item 1.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
3) Barack Obama thinks a family making $250 K are millionaires.
Nobody's arguing about folks making 10's of millions of dollars. Obama has diverted your attention by saying nebulous words like rich.
Do you think a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000+ in taxes should pay more into the current state of our government? Do you think that's fair?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
What is it about my question you are not getting Pandora??
Thanks for the read, the article goes on about increased turnout and %'s of african americans who voted for Obama. None of this is being disputed.
You mentioned that the main reason these people voted was because Obama was black - not policy, not ideology, hell not even because they liked the guy - but because he was black.
Nowhere in these links does it provide stats to back up that claim that you have made. Sheesh, how hard is it to get a straight answer from you.
Anyway, forget it, I don't care anymore. You made an outlandish statement, and then post after post attempted to derail and deflect the earlier point. You've shown your ignorance on the topic, and your petiness in ability to debate. I have better things to do.
:wave:
you forgot your question mark ...
I've noticed you have a keen sense of humor but can you put two and two together?
The stats clearly show and the article says 2 million more blacks turned out to vote for their man
then in previous election.
My opinion this is due to the fact he was also a black man. I put two and two together.
Would they have voted for a different black man ? ... yes I think so.
And did they not only vote but then record numbers went to celebrate with him. This a unique response.
Yeah! Our first black President in the history of our Country!
hey I saw signs! It was a wonderful moment, it speaks volumes, it was good!
IT WAS HISTORY!!!
Not sure why you can not understand this but whatever, is that ignorance?
cause I think I'm grasping this situation quite well.
Perhaps as you said before to emotional for you.
Sorry it was, it was an emotional time. I cried.
I have a feeling are you hard to please?
Not me, I'm pleasy easy
So if you don't like Yoda AND if you don't like my debate form do us both a favor, Moonpig,
ignore...your insults only reflect on you.
Honestly, I find it maddening to think we are now in a place where if you question how much money the government takes from you, you are being a petulant child.
Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.
This is obviously directed at Gimmiesometruth, but I have to point out that your statement in bold is incredibly erroneous.
Obama is starting a "war" by pointing out the fact that inequality exists in this society? That the top have seen dramatic gains in income over the past 3 decades while the middle class wages have been stagnant? That the middle-class is shrinking due to a trickle-down on steroids philosophy?
no let's clarify. obama must have started a war at home by stating that trickle down economics is a failure and he is wanting to have a real conversation about income equality or the lack of income equality.
what i find maddening is the people bitching the most about deficits and the lack of a balanced budget refuse to give another dime to help the country that has made it possible for them to be so fortunate. it is selfish, ignorant, and childish.
watch, someone is going to have a childish go at me now instead of addressing my point....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.
and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.
It's always someone else's fault. :roll:
i am being totally serious here. if you refuse to admit that the republican controlled house and specifically john boehner were directly responsible for failing to bring the jobs bill to a vote, then there is no point in furthering this discussion with you.
if you don't want to believe me, then i am sure you can look it up.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.
How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?
Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.
how much more?
clinton rates.
we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more.
How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?
Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.
how much more?
clinton rates.
we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.
In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.
If President Barack Obama is given a second term, one vitally important group of taxpayers—small employers—will face five key tax increases:
1. Income tax increase. A pillar of President Obama’s re-election campaign is a hike in the top two marginal income tax rates. By and large, small employers pay their small business taxes using individual tax rates. If individual tax rates are raised, so are small business tax rates. The top income tax rate is scheduled to rise from 35 percent in 2012 to 39.6 percent in 2013. According to IRS data, a clear majority of all small business profits face taxation at this top marginal income tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the top income tax rate IS the small business tax rate in America today.
President Obama and congressional Democrats claim they are raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” but are actually targeting successful small companies. A new study by Ernst and Young projects that this tax rate hike will kill 710,000 small business jobs.
2. Death Tax Increase. The death tax in 2012 has a top rate of 35 percent, and a “standard deduction” of $5 million ($10 million in the case of a married couple or surviving spouse). President Obama’s plan proposes raising the rate to 45 percent and slashing the exemption to $3.5 million.
When a family business owner dies, it’s up to the surviving family members to pay the death tax to the government. Needless to say, many successful, job-creating small businesses simply won’t survive this process. Such families will have little choice but to sell the business (and lay off all the employees) in order to pay the IRS. Or they will have to pay a small fortune to lawyers, accountants, and the life insurance industry to avoid this fate.
3. ObamaCare self-employment tax rate increase. Currently, successful small business owners face a self-employment tax of 2.9 percent. Thanks to ObamaCare’s 2013 hike in this tax rate, this will rise to 3.8 percent. All told, the combination of the income tax hike and the self-employment tax hike will raise the marginal income tax rate on small business profits from about 38 percent today to about 43 percent in 2013. That extra five percentage points might not sound like a lot, but most small employers have very thin profit margins. A company with $1 million in profits facing a higher tax rate of 5 percentage points will be saddled with another $50,000 in taxes.
4. ObamaCare Medical Device Tax: Taking effect in 2013, this 2.3 percent tax on companies making devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales, even if the respective company doesn’t earn a profit in a given year. The industry employs 409,000 Americans in 12,000 plants across the country, and many incur a loss for several years as they pioneer the next generation of life-improving devices.
This looming $20 billion tax is already causing small business job loss and cuts to research and development budgets. Even liberal Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren knows the medical device tax is destructive to small business. She wrote an op-ed in opposition to the tax, saying: “When Congress taxes the sale of a specific product through an excise tax, as the Affordable Care Act does with medical devices, it too often disproportionately impacts the small companies with the narrowest financial margins and the broadest innovative potential. It also pushes companies of all sizes to cut back on research and development for life-saving product.”
Eighty percent of device companies have fewer than 50 employees, according to the Medical Device Manufacturers Association. Many of these small businesses are located in electoral swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and New Hampshire.
5. ObamaCare Investment Surtax: Also taking effect in 2013, this tax increase captures those few small business owners not covered by the self-employment tax hike: owners of Subchapter-S corporations and limited partners. These owners are currently exempt from self-employment tax, mostly because they are investors rather than proprietors. But ObamaCare sweeps them into the IRS net too, forcing them to pay the 3.8 percentage point tax as an “investor surtax.” This will make it far more difficult for investors to raise money to start up small firms. An investor is going to need to see even greater small business profit projections to overcome this higher “hurdle rate” of taxes. Not only does a small business owner have to give his investor a strong return on his investment, he now has to do it with a giant tax mill around his neck.
These five tax increases only begin to scratch the surface. Small employers are also facing the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty starting in 2014. This tax provision will force small businesses with more than 50 employees to purchase “qualifying” health insurance, or else face a tax of up to $2,000 per employee.
In taxes, a truism is that if you want less of something, you tax it more. Whether he realizes it or not, President Obama’s tax policies will result in fewer and less successful small businesses, fewer small business jobs, fewer family businesses that can be passed along from parents to children, fewer medical device manufacturing jobs, and much less investment in small employer start-ups
what i find maddening is the people bitching the most about deficits and the lack of a balanced budget refuse to give another dime to help the country that has made it possible for them to be so fortunate. it is selfish, ignorant, and childish.
watch, someone is going to have a childish go at me now instead of addressing my point....
You are the one that made the childish remark, as usual. Why don't you make another go at my signature?
And you are boiling everything down to be so black and white. I am ok with an increase in taxes, just not in the manner they are proposed because it will do nothing to curb spending in the least. I'm for reduced defense spending, I'm for some sort of health care plan (including keeping Obama care in the short term as we figure out a better way).
You don;t pay down deficits by taking in more money and then spending even more. That;s the dems plan.
You don't pay down the deficit by not taking in any more money and not making meaningful defense spending cuts. That's the repubs plan.
We have no compromise in congress because that is exactly what most people truly want. They want their side to win and if they can't they take their ball and go home.
And yes, Obama is just as much to blame for this discourse as the republican leadership in Congress.
we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.
Yes we do but not how you see it.
I view it as my money and demand more accountability. You look at it as their money to take when they want, how much they want.
In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.
In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.
obama is not the only person who said this. search posts on this forum from 2007 and before. kanye west said that at an awards ceremony.
you republicans are getting desperate.
While I agree the repubs are getting desperate, what does it matter what Kanye West said? Ever? That seems like a weird defense of a politician and now president. "So what? Hell, an egomaniac musician said that too!!!"
we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.
two things...
what makes clinton rates special? how will a few extra billion coming in curb a trillion dollar deficit? how will 39% make a difference? Especially considering they aren't going to decrease spending. I have said it more than once, but if we double income tax revenue we will not balance the budget. Until someone is serious about CUTTING spending...not simply decreasing the base line increase, I will never support the federal gov't taking one more cent from anyone.
The fundamental difference has nothing to do with stolen vs upholding responsibilities for most logically sound people...it is that one side believes that gov't can solve the problems and one side believes people will better serve the economy if they have more money. And it really isn't that much of a difference, just different beliefs in how to get people more money.
I have no problem paying taxes, I have a problem when I am forced to follow the rules that don't seem to apply to the gov't. I do have a problem when people are incredibly gung ho about taking someone else's money simply because they have more of it, and I have an even bigger problem when people support candidates like President Obama and Mitt Romney simply because of the letter next to their name...Taxes...not a huge concern in the whole scheme of things...more concerned about what they do with the money.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i understand the points that you are making Mike. the thing is, there are automatic, across the board cuts that are going to take effect in january if congress can not come to some sort of agreement when the debt ceiling debate comes up again. these cuts were agreed upon by the bipartisan supercommittee. this is the fiscal cliff that the media is all talking about. now the republicans are wanting to undo the automatic cuts because it takes money away from the military and the pentagon. this is my main gripe. why is it ok to cut programs that help the poor and deprive them of food and healthcare? why is it ok to cut education when our schools are failing and our kids are not getting the education that they need? why is it ok to cut funding for infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair? I just don't see why these things are the first to be cut while the military is suddenly unable to be cut. under a romney presidency he said that he would give the military and pentagon MORE money... :shock:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i understand the points that you are making Mike. the thing is, there are automatic, across the board cuts that are going to take effect in january if congress can not come to some sort of agreement when the debt ceiling debate comes up again. these cuts were agreed upon by the bipartisan supercommittee. this is the fiscal cliff that the media is all talking about. now the republicans are wanting to undo the automatic cuts because it takes money away from the military and the pentagon. this is my main gripe. why is it ok to cut programs that help the poor and deprive them of food and healthcare? why is it ok to cut education when our schools are failing and our kids are not getting the education that they need? why is it ok to cut funding for infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair? I just don't see why these things are the first to be cut while the military is suddenly unable to be cut. under a romney presidency he said that he would give the military and pentagon MORE money... :shock:
agree with a lot of this.
The super-committee was never constitutional in the first place. It was a lazy out. Automatic cuts were the only way anything would ever get cut and everyone knew they needed cuts. I believe there were many of us on here who called this situation. We all knew they wouldn't come to an agreement so the automatic cuts that were agreed to in order to give the impression that they were serious would be the first thing that was challenged. Automatic cuts takes the blame off of anyone side or person...all the politicians can simply point to it and say...they were automatic I had nothing to do with them...in fact I tried to fight them...
Same old bullshit. Only care about re-election. Just once I would like a politician to admit that the only reason they do things is to get re-elected. Very few act on conviction, and those that do are called crazy. Senator Wellstone comes to mind.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The private sector can take care of itself and not rely on government
to provide for citizens. This we can do by requiring everyone to pitch in.
Local communities, charities, churches, businesses can work together.
The system we have now is promoting greed and fraud within.
Greed and fraud by those who truly do not need aid. Greed by those skimming huge profits
from charitable organizations. If all that went to where it was needed
we can feed the poor, house them, educate them without the federal government,
we can do this on local levels where people have a say, where people care.
If there was literally no federal taxation except what was needed to defend our
country, to help in natural catastrophes, to pay our representatives, without pensions
or life long salaries :wtf: that needs to stop,
people would have money to buy, to give, to help our economy flourish.
Of course military cuts should take place but so far the private sector can not
defend itself. Can not defend our country.
We need a military but can definitely weed out the greed and fraud
there as well.
In June 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama told a mostly black audience of ministers that the country's leaders "don't care about" New Orleans residents, suggesting the city was neglected in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina because of institutional racism, according to an unedited video uncovered by The Daily Caller.
Comments
Mitt Romney admits he’ll need to raise taxes on the middle class
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... dle-class/
On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”
You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.
Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.
But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.
The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.
For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.
Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:
The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.
The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”
And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.
And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.
So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.
Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
How much more? According to who? You get to decide who can afford to pay more?
Certainly taxes are required to pay for some things, but to take it for granted that they should be taken and that they should take more despite their record on spending is far more childish than one that cares about where the $ they make is going. Seems like a pretty lame argument.
Petulant children?
Again, study Giuliani's NY and you will see a path to lower welfare rolls and higher employment that the liberals lead by David Dinkins explicitally said was impossible. Then, you can come talk to be about higher taxes. But, to throw good money after bad is pointless.
And, to cut you off at the pass - yes, there are folks that TRULY need help. And, they should be helped. Where that line is, like the definition of fair is up for debate. But, when you have the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE in 30 years AND unemployment above 8%, something ain't workin'. And, it's not the other guy's fault. And, even if you believe it is, something should be headed in the right direction. We shouldn't be left with FEWER jobs than 4 years ago.
As for Romney's admission that he would need to raise taxes on the middle class - how else do you plan on closing the deficit? So, his telling the truth is the issue. Obama hides the truth or is unwilling to make the tough decisions. It's easy to say - let's take money from the millionaires (defined as folks making $750,000 less than million :? ) and give it to YOU (general you, not picking on you) is the easy way to win an election. But, not an easy way to keep promises or solve anything.
But, yes - I personally look at things for the greater good. Now, obviously, it's colored by my own humastic personal issues and view of the world. But, I don't just pick someone because I like what they say. I look at what their true goals are (e.g. - did anyone that voted for Obama truly believe he was closing Guantanamo? If you did - I have a bridge for sale), and determine what is good for the vast majority of the country (you are never going to satisfy everyone realistically, but how close can you come?). If I have to pay a little more taxes, then fine. But, just to simply ask "rich" folks for taxes with no real job creation as a result, is silly. It doesn't do anything other than make folks feel better that they are not as far "behind" as they were before they took their money. I don't give a shit if Zuckerberg is rich beyond our wildest imaginations. Taking another $120,000 a year from him isn't changing his life, my life, your life or the welfare recipient's life.
Self centeredness is what got us deeper in the hole. Trying to have the government be everything to everybody is what continues to dig us deeper. You said who wouldn't folks be selfish? I told you why. I agreed they aren't but you somehow still turned that into a point of argument. I'm arguing for folks to look at the overall picture because, if that looks better, it will be better for (most) everyone. By looking at your own immediate help (e.g. bailout), the (not so) long term ends up being worse not better (as shown by the current state of employment after the bailouts).
The funny thing is, I'm not a big supporter of Romney. I do like the fact that his resume at least looks decent compared to a community organizing failed President. But, to be honest, I can't sit here and tell you he's the solution either. I just know what isn't.
in most of your posts you keep bringing up "lowest labor participation rate in 30 years". why is that? it is not as if obama did not try. do you know how many votes were held on obama's jobs bill? ZERO. do you know how many votes were held on abortion this congress? a lot more than ZERO, that is for sure. these people blocked a jobs bill, when their first priority aside from making obama a one term president, was supposed to be jobs. these people are trying to sink the titanic just to make the captain look bad. reasonable people see that and they recognize that and they will vote accordingly. idealogues will not recognize that and vote accordingly.
and what is fair? clinton tax rates were fair and the middle and lower classes did better under those rate. the rich even did better under those rates.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's always someone else's fault. :roll:
Where are the jobs? The stage is perfectly set for the wonders of voodoo economics to magically rescue the nation from a near depression. Where are the jobs?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
"The growing antagonism of the super-wealthy toward Obama can seem mystifying, since Obama has served the rich quite well. His Administration supported the seven-hundred-billion-dollar TARP rescue package for Wall Street, and resisted calls from the Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and others on the left, to nationalize the big banks in exchange for that largesse. At the end of September, the S. & P. 500, the benchmark U.S. stock index, had rebounded to just 6.9 per cent below its all-time pre-crisis high, on October 9, 2007. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have found that ninety-three per cent of the gains during the 2009-10 recovery went to the top one per cent of earners. Those seated around the table at dinner with Al Gore had done even better: the top 0.01 per cent captured thirty-seven per cent of the total recovery pie, with a rebound in their incomes of more than twenty per cent, which amounted to an additional $4.2 million each."
Oh, that's how socialism works---all the wealth goes to the top. I got it now.
These cry-babies are fucking garbage. Its times like these that I wish I was religious so I can tell them to burn in hell. But hey, they deserve their $10, 20, 30 million salaries. I mean, at least they're not moochers like those in our military, those who are risking their lives in the desert and making a whopping average salary of $50,000. Hmmm.....$20,000,000 to run a hedge fund vs. $50,000 to risk their lives in the desert for...oil, no freedom, no oil........"God" Bless America.
did you read the link in my post you just quoted?
We can add this one as well
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0 thanks! :shh:
and there I was basing my comment on pure feeling
I guess pigs do fly
Thank you Mr. Obama for this brave new world you have created and the war you have started at home.
This is obviously directed at Gimmiesometruth, but I have to point out that your statement in bold is incredibly erroneous.
Obama is starting a "war" by pointing out the fact that inequality exists in this society? That the top have seen dramatic gains in income over the past 3 decades while the middle class wages have been stagnant? That the middle-class is shrinking due to a trickle-down on steroids philosophy?
Here you go:
http://www.economist.com/node/21549944
http://www.epi.org/publication/income_i ... _this_way/
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-john ... et-richer/
http://milescorak.com/2012/03/04/over-9 ... the-top-1/
What is it about my question you are not getting Pandora??
Thanks for the read, the article goes on about increased turnout and %'s of african americans who voted for Obama. None of this is being disputed.
You mentioned that the main reason these people voted was because Obama was black - not policy, not ideology, hell not even because they liked the guy - but because he was black.
Nowhere in these links does it provide stats to back up that claim that you have made. Sheesh, how hard is it to get a straight answer from you.
Anyway, forget it, I don't care anymore. You made an outlandish statement, and then post after post attempted to derail and deflect the earlier point. You've shown your ignorance on the topic, and your petiness in ability to debate. I have better things to do.
:wave:
You seem to frame everything in terms of the tippy top folks. A few things about that:
1) Someone making $10 million will find plenty of places to hide their loot if you tax it at an extraordinary rate. You can call them what you want, but would you act any differently.
2) Taking money from those folks is not solving the economic problem. There's so few of them, and see item 1.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
3) Barack Obama thinks a family making $250 K are millionaires.
Nobody's arguing about folks making 10's of millions of dollars. Obama has diverted your attention by saying nebulous words like rich.
Do you think a family making $250,000 that already pays $80,000+ in taxes should pay more into the current state of our government? Do you think that's fair?
I've noticed you have a keen sense of humor but can you put two and two together?
The stats clearly show and the article says 2 million more blacks turned out to vote for their man
then in previous election.
My opinion this is due to the fact he was also a black man. I put two and two together.
Would they have voted for a different black man ? ... yes I think so.
And did they not only vote but then record numbers went to celebrate
with him. This a unique response.
Yeah! Our first black President in the history of our Country!
hey I saw signs! It was a wonderful moment, it speaks volumes, it was good!
IT WAS HISTORY!!!
Not sure why you can not understand this but whatever, is that ignorance?
cause I think I'm grasping this situation quite well.
Perhaps as you said before to emotional for you.
Sorry it was, it was an emotional time. I cried.
I have a feeling are you hard to please?
Not me, I'm pleasy easy
So if you don't like Yoda AND if you don't like my debate form do us both a favor, Moonpig,
ignore...your insults only reflect on you.
no let's clarify. obama must have started a war at home by stating that trickle down economics is a failure and he is wanting to have a real conversation about income equality or the lack of income equality.
what i find maddening is the people bitching the most about deficits and the lack of a balanced budget refuse to give another dime to help the country that has made it possible for them to be so fortunate. it is selfish, ignorant, and childish.
watch, someone is going to have a childish go at me now instead of addressing my point....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if you don't want to believe me, then i am sure you can look it up.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
clinton rates.
we have a fundamentally different way of looking at taxation. you view it as being stolen from you. i view it as upholding my responsibilities as an american citizen. no matter how you try to frame it, that is the fundamental difference between my world view and yours.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... z28EeISe28
Godfather.
1. Income tax increase. A pillar of President Obama’s re-election campaign is a hike in the top two marginal income tax rates. By and large, small employers pay their small business taxes using individual tax rates. If individual tax rates are raised, so are small business tax rates. The top income tax rate is scheduled to rise from 35 percent in 2012 to 39.6 percent in 2013. According to IRS data, a clear majority of all small business profits face taxation at this top marginal income tax rate. For all intents and purposes, the top income tax rate IS the small business tax rate in America today.
President Obama and congressional Democrats claim they are raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” but are actually targeting successful small companies. A new study by Ernst and Young projects that this tax rate hike will kill 710,000 small business jobs.
2. Death Tax Increase. The death tax in 2012 has a top rate of 35 percent, and a “standard deduction” of $5 million ($10 million in the case of a married couple or surviving spouse). President Obama’s plan proposes raising the rate to 45 percent and slashing the exemption to $3.5 million.
When a family business owner dies, it’s up to the surviving family members to pay the death tax to the government. Needless to say, many successful, job-creating small businesses simply won’t survive this process. Such families will have little choice but to sell the business (and lay off all the employees) in order to pay the IRS. Or they will have to pay a small fortune to lawyers, accountants, and the life insurance industry to avoid this fate.
3. ObamaCare self-employment tax rate increase. Currently, successful small business owners face a self-employment tax of 2.9 percent. Thanks to ObamaCare’s 2013 hike in this tax rate, this will rise to 3.8 percent. All told, the combination of the income tax hike and the self-employment tax hike will raise the marginal income tax rate on small business profits from about 38 percent today to about 43 percent in 2013. That extra five percentage points might not sound like a lot, but most small employers have very thin profit margins. A company with $1 million in profits facing a higher tax rate of 5 percentage points will be saddled with another $50,000 in taxes.
4. ObamaCare Medical Device Tax: Taking effect in 2013, this 2.3 percent tax on companies making devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales, even if the respective company doesn’t earn a profit in a given year. The industry employs 409,000 Americans in 12,000 plants across the country, and many incur a loss for several years as they pioneer the next generation of life-improving devices.
This looming $20 billion tax is already causing small business job loss and cuts to research and development budgets. Even liberal Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren knows the medical device tax is destructive to small business. She wrote an op-ed in opposition to the tax, saying: “When Congress taxes the sale of a specific product through an excise tax, as the Affordable Care Act does with medical devices, it too often disproportionately impacts the small companies with the narrowest financial margins and the broadest innovative potential. It also pushes companies of all sizes to cut back on research and development for life-saving product.”
Eighty percent of device companies have fewer than 50 employees, according to the Medical Device Manufacturers Association. Many of these small businesses are located in electoral swing states such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and New Hampshire.
5. ObamaCare Investment Surtax: Also taking effect in 2013, this tax increase captures those few small business owners not covered by the self-employment tax hike: owners of Subchapter-S corporations and limited partners. These owners are currently exempt from self-employment tax, mostly because they are investors rather than proprietors. But ObamaCare sweeps them into the IRS net too, forcing them to pay the 3.8 percentage point tax as an “investor surtax.” This will make it far more difficult for investors to raise money to start up small firms. An investor is going to need to see even greater small business profit projections to overcome this higher “hurdle rate” of taxes. Not only does a small business owner have to give his investor a strong return on his investment, he now has to do it with a giant tax mill around his neck.
These five tax increases only begin to scratch the surface. Small employers are also facing the ObamaCare employer mandate tax penalty starting in 2014. This tax provision will force small businesses with more than 50 employees to purchase “qualifying” health insurance, or else face a tax of up to $2,000 per employee.
In taxes, a truism is that if you want less of something, you tax it more. Whether he realizes it or not, President Obama’s tax policies will result in fewer and less successful small businesses, fewer small business jobs, fewer family businesses that can be passed along from parents to children, fewer medical device manufacturing jobs, and much less investment in small employer start-ups
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/ ... z28EgrrXf7
Godfather.
You are the one that made the childish remark, as usual. Why don't you make another go at my signature?
And you are boiling everything down to be so black and white. I am ok with an increase in taxes, just not in the manner they are proposed because it will do nothing to curb spending in the least. I'm for reduced defense spending, I'm for some sort of health care plan (including keeping Obama care in the short term as we figure out a better way).
You don;t pay down deficits by taking in more money and then spending even more. That;s the dems plan.
You don't pay down the deficit by not taking in any more money and not making meaningful defense spending cuts. That's the repubs plan.
We have no compromise in congress because that is exactly what most people truly want. They want their side to win and if they can't they take their ball and go home.
And yes, Obama is just as much to blame for this discourse as the republican leadership in Congress.
Yes we do but not how you see it.
I view it as my money and demand more accountability. You look at it as their money to take when they want, how much they want.
you republicans are getting desperate.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
While I agree the repubs are getting desperate, what does it matter what Kanye West said? Ever? That seems like a weird defense of a politician and now president. "So what? Hell, an egomaniac musician said that too!!!"
two things...
what makes clinton rates special? how will a few extra billion coming in curb a trillion dollar deficit? how will 39% make a difference? Especially considering they aren't going to decrease spending. I have said it more than once, but if we double income tax revenue we will not balance the budget. Until someone is serious about CUTTING spending...not simply decreasing the base line increase, I will never support the federal gov't taking one more cent from anyone.
The fundamental difference has nothing to do with stolen vs upholding responsibilities for most logically sound people...it is that one side believes that gov't can solve the problems and one side believes people will better serve the economy if they have more money. And it really isn't that much of a difference, just different beliefs in how to get people more money.
I have no problem paying taxes, I have a problem when I am forced to follow the rules that don't seem to apply to the gov't. I do have a problem when people are incredibly gung ho about taking someone else's money simply because they have more of it, and I have an even bigger problem when people support candidates like President Obama and Mitt Romney simply because of the letter next to their name...Taxes...not a huge concern in the whole scheme of things...more concerned about what they do with the money.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
agree with a lot of this.
The super-committee was never constitutional in the first place. It was a lazy out. Automatic cuts were the only way anything would ever get cut and everyone knew they needed cuts. I believe there were many of us on here who called this situation. We all knew they wouldn't come to an agreement so the automatic cuts that were agreed to in order to give the impression that they were serious would be the first thing that was challenged. Automatic cuts takes the blame off of anyone side or person...all the politicians can simply point to it and say...they were automatic I had nothing to do with them...in fact I tried to fight them...
Same old bullshit. Only care about re-election. Just once I would like a politician to admit that the only reason they do things is to get re-elected. Very few act on conviction, and those that do are called crazy. Senator Wellstone comes to mind.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
to provide for citizens. This we can do by requiring everyone to pitch in.
Local communities, charities, churches, businesses can work together.
The system we have now is promoting greed and fraud within.
Greed and fraud by those who truly do not need aid. Greed by those skimming huge profits
from charitable organizations. If all that went to where it was needed
we can feed the poor, house them, educate them without the federal government,
we can do this on local levels where people have a say, where people care.
If there was literally no federal taxation except what was needed to defend our
country, to help in natural catastrophes, to pay our representatives, without pensions
or life long salaries :wtf: that needs to stop,
people would have money to buy, to give, to help our economy flourish.
Of course military cuts should take place but so far the private sector can not
defend itself. Can not defend our country.
We need a military but can definitely weed out the greed and fraud
there as well.
Same as taxes, really... And this 'managed' by whom?
Kane West ?