If you really want to help small business

[Wry Catcher]

What is the positive of punishing investment income? Sounds like another run at "fairness". Until we eliminate this kind of language from teh debate we will never have a decent tax policy. Tax policy needs to be first and foremost about provding sufficient revenue to the gov't for its legitimate operations. It should not be about social engineering, political slogans, or--gd forbid--"fairness".

No.. it is not about fairness... it is about equality in treatment.. and there are positives and negatives that come with it

Yes... sufficient revenue and cutting spending to get to reasonable levels.. very important.... but never lose sight of equality in treatment

Sorry. "Equality in treatment" sounds like "fairness". Can you explain the difference?

Explain precisely if you can what you mean by "social engineering" Rabbi.

 

[SniperFire]

One thing small businesses need is better finance plans when borrowing money. The banks are either saying no, or loading the fees up on loans to make as much money that is legally possible.

Why don't Liberals just ask small business what they want and need, instead of pretending ?


Oh that's right.


You wouldn't want to hear the answer.

Have you ever ask all the small businesses in the USA what they need?

You can begin here, tard:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce | Fighting For Your Business

 

[Vel]

Why can't businesses right off all of there purchases when they make them instead of depreciating them?

So much hypocrisy from the cons, delicious.

So please explain why this is the republicans fault. Was it republicans that changed the amount of business equipment that could be written off?

They are about to.

I didn't give Dubya kudos for much, but I do give him kudos for pushing for raising the amount a business could right off for equipment purchases.

No, Republicans want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would be Obama and the Democrats that want to allow them to expire. You should place your blame where it is due.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Get your reps to approve this:



I would so give raises and buy more equipment if this passes.

I don't need any new equipment or any new employees.

Bribing people to hire employees they don't need isn't going to help the bottom line of any business because the cost of the employee will surely be more than any tax credit you'll receive.

Ditto for buying equipment you don't need.

So if you don't want to grow your business, that is your choice. At least we'll keep paying for your toilet paper!

You don't grow your business by hiring people you don't need or by buying equipment you don't need.

And my business has averaged a 7% growth over the last 5 years because I don't hire more people than I need.

If you think that hiring people alone is going to grow a business you don't know shit about business.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you don't want a jobs creation tax break, don't take it

Why should we give you tax breaks that are sold as job creation tools whether you create jobs or not?

No, we dont want anyone to have temporary targeted bribes with our money. Our taking it will not affect that.
"You" are not giving "us" anything.

It is done and has been done longer than you have been alive rabbi.
You city does it, your county does it, your state does and your nation does it. And it is done in many, many places on places not in the USA.

You could say the same about rape. Doesn't make it good.

 

[DiamondDave]

What is the positive of punishing investment income? Sounds like another run at "fairness". Until we eliminate this kind of language from teh debate we will never have a decent tax policy. Tax policy needs to be first and foremost about provding sufficient revenue to the gov't for its legitimate operations. It should not be about social engineering, political slogans, or--gd forbid--"fairness".

No.. it is not about fairness... it is about equality in treatment.. and there are positives and negatives that come with it

Yes... sufficient revenue and cutting spending to get to reasonable levels.. very important.... but never lose sight of equality in treatment

Sorry. "Equality in treatment" sounds like "fairness". Can you explain the difference?

Fairness inherently includes a subjective assessment or judgement to derive the treatment... equality in treatment may be considered fair to some and unfair to others based on their thoughts, situations, etc...

Unfortunately fairness, in terms of our government, has little to so with equality... and it has been bastardized to go away from impartial and go toward partiality towards a group or set of people/entities with a similar situation... 'fairness' in terms of government goes more toward outcome than treatment

If that makes any sense

 

[DiamondDave]

What is the positive of punishing investment income? Sounds like another run at "fairness". Until we eliminate this kind of language from teh debate we will never have a decent tax policy. Tax policy needs to be first and foremost about provding sufficient revenue to the gov't for its legitimate operations. It should not be about social engineering, political slogans, or--gd forbid--"fairness".

It's not punishment. It's the same for everyone across the board.

Very true and I agree, all income should be taxed equally. At the same time, the progressive tax system does tax all income equally. What is not taxed equally is capital gains.

But this will NEVER happen because the rich and their supporters don't want it to happen.

No.. by definition a progressive system does not tax all income equally

 

[The Rabbi]

No.. it is not about fairness... it is about equality in treatment.. and there are positives and negatives that come with it

Yes... sufficient revenue and cutting spending to get to reasonable levels.. very important.... but never lose sight of equality in treatment

Sorry. "Equality in treatment" sounds like "fairness". Can you explain the difference?

Explain precisely if you can what you mean by "social engineering" Rabbi.

Using the tax code to encourage certain social behavior and outcome and discourage others, regardless of effect on revenue.

 

[Oddball]

Good big government response there, Fraudball.

Translation: I haven't the first idea what I'm blabbering about.

What I'm blabbering about is what a fraud you really are.

Setting aside the fact that you don't know your ass from a hot rock and wouldn't know the ins and outs of tax law if your were beat over the head, I'll answer the question for the lurkers out there.

Capital equipment isn't written off 100% at point of purchase because it's considered an asset (depreciation is an assumed liability)....Even though through use it can be deemed worth less than the purchase price, it still has value as a serviceable and potentially salable item.

You don't get to deduct assets from your taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

No.. it is not about fairness... it is about equality in treatment.. and there are positives and negatives that come with it

Yes... sufficient revenue and cutting spending to get to reasonable levels.. very important.... but never lose sight of equality in treatment

Sorry. "Equality in treatment" sounds like "fairness". Can you explain the difference?

Fairness inherently includes a subjective assessment or judgement to derive the treatment... equality in treatment may be considered fair to some and unfair to others based on their thoughts, situations, etc...

Unfortunately fairness, in terms of our government, has little to so with equality... and it has been bastardized to go away from impartial and go toward partiality towards a group or set of people/entities with a similar situation... 'fairness' in terms of government goes more toward outcome than treatment

If that makes any sense

OK, I can see that.
I still think treating investment income different makes sense because of its role in the economy. But reasonable people can disagree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: I haven't the first idea what I'm blabbering about.

What I'm blabbering about is what a fraud you really are.

Setting aside the fact that you don't know your ass from a hot rock and wouldn't know the ins and outs of tax law if your were beat over the head, I'll answer the question for the lurkers out there.

Capital equipment isn't written off 100% at point of purchase because it's considered an asset (depreciation is an assumed liability)....Even though through use it can be deemed worth less than the purchase price, it still has value as a serviceable and potentially salable item.

You don't get to deduct assets from your taxes.

Most people don't understand depreciation of a capital asset.

 

[saveliberty]

Not to mention when you sell said asset, it becomes a revenue item.

 

[Ravi]

So please explain why this is the republicans fault. Was it republicans that changed the amount of business equipment that could be written off?

They are about to.

I didn't give Dubya kudos for much, but I do give him kudos for pushing for raising the amount a business could right off for equipment purchases.

No, Republicans want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. It would be Obama and the Democrats that want to allow them to expire. You should place your blame where it is due.

sigh, you're talking about another tax entirely. Thanks for playing.

 

[Ravi]

I don't need any new equipment or any new employees.

Bribing people to hire employees they don't need isn't going to help the bottom line of any business because the cost of the employee will surely be more than any tax credit you'll receive.

Ditto for buying equipment you don't need.

So if you don't want to grow your business, that is your choice. At least we'll keep paying for your toilet paper!

You don't grow your business by hiring people you don't need or by buying equipment you don't need.

And my business has averaged a 7% growth over the last 5 years because I don't hire more people than I need.

If you think that hiring people alone is going to grow a business you don't know shit about business.

Dude, instead of kneejerking read for comprehension. I think nothing of the sort.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Translation: I haven't the first idea what I'm blabbering about.

What I'm blabbering about is what a fraud you really are.

Setting aside the fact that you don't know your ass from a hot rock and wouldn't know the ins and outs of tax law if your were beat over the head, I'll answer the question for the lurkers out there.

Capital equipment isn't written off 100% at point of purchase because it's considered an asset (depreciation is an assumed liability)....Even though through use it can be deemed worth less than the purchase price, it still has value as a serviceable and potentially salable item.

You don't get to deduct assets from your taxes.

Exactly.

In fact depreciation schedules are the bane of a small business.

If you really want to help small business get rid of the ridiculously long depreciation schedules and let businesses write off 100% of their expenditures on capital improvements in the year they are made.

 

[Ravi]

Translation: I haven't the first idea what I'm blabbering about.

What I'm blabbering about is what a fraud you really are.

Setting aside the fact that you don't know your ass from a hot rock and wouldn't know the ins and outs of tax law if your were beat over the head, I'll answer the question for the lurkers out there.

Capital equipment isn't written off 100% at point of purchase because it's considered an asset (depreciation is an assumed liability)....Even though through use it can be deemed worth less than the purchase price, it still has value as a serviceable and potentially salable item.

You don't get to deduct assets from your taxes.

Except when you do. I'm sure you were all over Dubya for allowing it.

 

[saveliberty]

What is the positive of punishing investment income? Sounds like another run at "fairness". Until we eliminate this kind of language from teh debate we will never have a decent tax policy. Tax policy needs to be first and foremost about provding sufficient revenue to the gov't for its legitimate operations. It should not be about social engineering, political slogans, or--gd forbid--"fairness".

It's not punishment. It's the same for everyone across the board.

Very true and I agree, all income should be taxed equally. At the same time, the progressive tax system does tax all income equally. What is not taxed equally is capital gains.

But this will NEVER happen because the rich and their supporters don't want it to happen.

So you would like 401(k)s and all IRAs taxed too?

 

[Ravi]

What I'm blabbering about is what a fraud you really are.

Setting aside the fact that you don't know your ass from a hot rock and wouldn't know the ins and outs of tax law if your were beat over the head, I'll answer the question for the lurkers out there.

Capital equipment isn't written off 100% at point of purchase because it's considered an asset (depreciation is an assumed liability)....Even though through use it can be deemed worth less than the purchase price, it still has value as a serviceable and potentially salable item.

You don't get to deduct assets from your taxes.

Exactly.

In fact depreciation schedules are the bane of a small business.

If you really want to help small business get rid of the ridiculously long depreciation schedules and let businesses write off 100% of their expenditures on capital improvements in the year they are made.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am SO tired of this tax cut for person or group X while person or group Y harbors more of the burden thing.. this posturing and pandering is why we got in trouble in the first place

Yes.. it sounds good, but it basically comes down to the government picking winners and losers in all aspects of the game.. and that is not the job of government

Why not a tax credit for people that paid cash for their house and drive a Ford pick-up?
Taxes shouldn't be used as a form of social engineering.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So if you don't want to grow your business, that is your choice. At least we'll keep paying for your toilet paper!

You don't grow your business by hiring people you don't need or by buying equipment you don't need.

And my business has averaged a 7% growth over the last 5 years because I don't hire more people than I need.

If you think that hiring people alone is going to grow a business you don't know shit about business.

Dude, instead of kneejerking read for comprehension. I think nothing of the sort.

So if you don't want to grow your business,

You are saying that if I don't want to hire people I don't need or buy equipment I don't need that I don't want to grow my business.

There can be no other interpretation of that statement given my original post.