The fiscally irresponsible right refuted on extension of Bush taxcuts

[Guerrilla]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYNWztgHQtI]YouTube - Rachel Maddow Uses Bush Sr Voodoo Economics Statement Against GOP Tax Cuts[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Repeal the 16th Amendment, 100 years of looking into people pockets is far too long.

Let's go back to having the states fund the government, this way when some Senator asks for federal money to dedicate a building in their state for clowns and hobos and long serving Congressmen, 98 Senators yell in unison,"FUCK YOU, CLOWNY!!!"

 

[oreo]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

NOPE---Sarah Palin is for CUTTING the size of GOVERNMENT to cut the deficit--while stimulating the economy by putting more money into American citizens pockets.

Raising taxes on anyone in this horrible recession is a receipe for DISASTER. Geez all you moron liberals think about is raising taxes on American citizens--so the government can spend and waste more. Are you liberals really this dumb?

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. And this is Obama's economic policy.

"When government is big enough to give you everything you want--it will also be big enough to take everything you have"--Thomas Jefferson

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Adrian Rogers--1931

 

[Guerrilla]

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. And this is Obama's economic policy.

No one can borrow to give tax breaks and expect prosperity. That is the Republican economic policy, and it's a proven failure.

 

[oreo]

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. And this is Obama's economic policy.

No one can borrow to give tax breaks and expect prosperity. That is the Republican economic policy, and it's a proven failure.

That's B.S.-

Taking money from American pockets at this time would be a disaster. Along with the tax cuts for the rich--capital gains tax would increase--(that's middle class tax HIKE btw)--and the tax on dividends would rise--which will hit our seniors HARD--that depend on dividends to make ends meet.

Right now I am listening to another report on the stimulus bill and the waste in that. 300 million to study menopause--(like we don't know about it already) and 200 million for a college to study the sex lives of female freshman. This was suppose to be an economic stimulus bill and it's nothing more than pork barrel spending that only goes out to a minut minority in this country--and it certainly IS NOT creating private sector jobs--which was shoved down our throats to do.

Geithner out today stating unemployment is not going to drop anytime soon. Americans are suffering--and our economy--DEPENDS on Americans spending money on goods and services. Taking money from the so-called rich--who already pay 67% of the entire tax base of this country is economic suicide. This while we have a whopping 45% in this country that pay no income tax what-so-ever.

This is how our government CONFISCATES our money and what they spend it on. You liberals can't wrap your brains around the FACT that the Federal Government is too dam big already. Yet--you believe that the government should provide everything to you-and of course (paid for by someone else)-while knowing full well that social security is bankrupt-and medicare is bankrupt. This while they're confiscating this money from you and your employer at every pay-check. They get it--and spend on anything an everything else other than your retirement or your health care. Yet you are so BLIND to that--it is absolutely histerical. Social Security is a better and bigger ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff ever thought of.

Yet you still TRUST the government to take care of you-- Now you've just given them your health--care-- And all of this while you're banging on the table--with common class envy-- to tax the rich aka the over 250K crowd--which encompasse's millions of small business owners in this nation--whom also are the largest employer in this country. It is a FACT that only 5% of the entire population make 250K per year and only 1% of this nation make over 300K per year.

The size of government under this current admininstration has doubled along with the deficit. In fact--our deficit started to soar as soon as Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid were installed in their positions during the Bush administration. And like common peasants--all it takes is one of your hero's to point the finger at the wealthy in this country--and say that they are to blame for your misery--and you liberals swallow that every single time--hook--line--and sinker.

 

[Flaylo]

No, there's not...Yet there'd be no need for any income tax, were it not for all the free lunch programs that are a prominent feature of the socialistic welfare/nanny state.

The military and all the other lawful functions of the feds could be supported through constitutionally provided imposts, excises and duties.

Where would THAT money come from? How would you financially support the military's $560 billion annual budget? How would those "other lawful functions" be paid for? A sales tax? It would have to be enormous.

Who needs a $560 billion military budget, when you bring the troops home and close bases in places where the wars have been over for several decades?

You are thinking like a mindless dumbfuck, nothing else really more to say, keeping troops deployed abroad has a strategic importance, the only troops we need to bring home are ones fighting in senseless wars that you rightwing Repug fucktards started. Whether at home or abroad the military still has a huge budget and there are more troops at home in the states that stationed abroad dumbass.

 

[Flaylo]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

 

[Jarhead]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

 

[MaggieMae]

You know...there were several times in my military career that I got a tax cut.

Happened every time I was serving time in a war zone, because they're tax free. Some of the guys who were re-enlistment bonus eligible liked to re-enlist when they were tax free.


Why? Simple........more money.

However.......when we exited the war zone, we were then charged taxes for our paycheck. At some better times, that tax free time was an extra 150 bucks per check in my wallet, but I also knew that when they "expired" (i.e. I left the zone), I had to pay my fair share again.

The Bush tax cuts were for businesses and the rich to start up job growth. That is also why they had an expiration date, because people wanted to see if they would do what everyone said before making them permanent.

Sadly, the jobs market during the tax cuts took a big hit, and there were many people who were jobless as their jobs had now been shipped overseas.

Let the tax cuts expire. The rich had their chance to help stimulate the economy and they failed.

Incidentally, the tax cuts that are currently in place for the middle and lower class? Not gonna be taken away.

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.

The two most important points that right wing media will not tell you.

 

[Jarhead]

You know...there were several times in my military career that I got a tax cut.

Happened every time I was serving time in a war zone, because they're tax free. Some of the guys who were re-enlistment bonus eligible liked to re-enlist when they were tax free.


Why? Simple........more money.

However.......when we exited the war zone, we were then charged taxes for our paycheck. At some better times, that tax free time was an extra 150 bucks per check in my wallet, but I also knew that when they "expired" (i.e. I left the zone), I had to pay my fair share again.

The Bush tax cuts were for businesses and the rich to start up job growth. That is also why they had an expiration date, because people wanted to see if they would do what everyone said before making them permanent.

Sadly, the jobs market during the tax cuts took a big hit, and there were many people who were jobless as their jobs had now been shipped overseas.

Let the tax cuts expire. The rich had their chance to help stimulate the economy and they failed.

Incidentally, the tax cuts that are currently in place for the middle and lower class? Not gonna be taken away.

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.

The two most important points that right wing media will not tell you.

Point number one I knew already as Fox News reported that quite clearly.

Point number two is strictly speculation based on hypothesis and variables and is not supposed to be reported by the news media as fact.

But I guess you are OK with the "left wing media" reporting that as fact.

Interesting.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

 

[MaggieMae]

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.

Those greedy fuckers pay most already!! kinda shoots that in the ass doesn't it?

Its simple the FEDS can't won't change giving them more will NOT change a thing.

What ARE you talking about? You first of all need to separate out the job of "the fed" from the Treasury. They are two completely separate entities.

But to that comment, and I can't recall who made it, a little known fact that was highly instrumental in the banking crash was the Recourse Rule.

...In 2001, the Fed, the FDIC, the comptroller of the currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision issued the Recourse Rule. An amendment to the international Basel I accords on bank capital, the Recourse Rule required banks to retain 80% more capital for business loans or corporate securities than for asset-backed bonds, including mortgage-backed bonds, as long as the bonds either were rated AAA or AA or were issued by a government-sponsored enterprise, such as Fannie and Freddie. No wonder commerical banks overinvested in these bonds!!

[Greed, baby, greed.]

Above is an excerpt from an article titled "It's Complicated," printed in the July 6, 2010 issue of The National Review magazine.

 

[Jarhead]

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

 

[MaggieMae]

Me: It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.

That's not proof of the rich getting richer. That one snippet has no trend. Show a trend.



Again, that just means that generally people with money know how to manage it better than those without money. So 2/3rd of them succeeded. So? That's no proof that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.



How does that compare to 1929? Again, no trend here.



When did they ever collectively own more?



That doesn't prove your "statistical fact."



But is "America's corporate wealth" worth the same? More? Less? If the same number of people own twice as much of something that's only a quarter of the previous value does that mean they got richer?



That doesn't mean they are poorer, it means government programs have gotten more generous and/or their incomes have declined. Here in Florida there are plenty of retired workers on food stamps. They are too young for Social Security, they have a paid off house and a paid off car, but they have no income so they get food stamps (actually EBT cards here).



Perhaps there isn't a rich future in being a garment worker. Doesn't prove anything about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Individuals mining for gold in California were making money hand over fist in 1849. There isn't much money to be made there anymore. Does that mean this is the fault of those who got rich?



Is that a factor of people getting poorer or poor people having more kids?



So 16% of 7,800,000 millionaires were not millionaires before? That seems to me like a lot of people who weren't rich became rich.

• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Doesn't prove you point. What is the trend on this?

Warren Buffett Urges Higher Corporate Taxes
Excerpt from Warren Buffett's letter to his shareholders, 2004:
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

 

[MaggieMae]

It's totally class envy...That's why stale old bromides like " rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" work on gullible halfwits.

And wealthy people aren't the only ones who'll fight for their own best interests...We also have a moocher class in America, who will screech bloody murder should anyone even dare to mention trimming back their favorite "free lunch" programs.

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion

For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

Income taxes are on earnings, not wealth...Corporate taxes and handouts are an entirely diffrent issue.

So your all-too-typical class envy deflecto-dog don't hunt.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's totally class envy...That's why stale old bromides like " rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer" work on gullible halfwits.

And wealthy people aren't the only ones who'll fight for their own best interests...We also have a moocher class in America, who will screech bloody murder should anyone even dare to mention trimming back their favorite "free lunch" programs.

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion

For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

Why should a corporation pay taxes? At best they are just another mechanism to collect taxes on consumers, and an inefficient one at that.

Why shouldn't profit be treated as income?

prof·it
excess of income over expenditure: the excess of income over expenditure, especially in business

income from something: income from an investment or transaction
advantage: an advantage or benefit derived from an activity

Synonyms: income, earnings, revenue, proceeds, turnover, yield, return, takings
See full definition ·

Encarta World English Dictionary

 

[Jarhead]

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

 

[MaggieMae]

You really need to get together with a tax accountant and have him/her adequately explain what the new tax law (not passed yet, by the way) will mean for small businesses. It is nowhere near as dire as the conservatives in Washington (and their talking heads) would have you believe. This is an outline of the provisions that are still being debated (when Congress returns), with the exception of the $30 billion which the Republicans managed to ding last week.

How can you call something that is not passed yet nowhere near as dire as anything? The problem right now is that we don't know how this is going to impact small business, and that is directly from my tax accountant. I talked about that in another thread, the inability to forecast fixed and variable costs right now.

» More Stimulus Tax Breaks and Hiring Credits in Obama's 2010 Small Business Recovery Plan | Saving to Inve$t

Interesting talking point. A $5000 credit to hire a new worker that costs at least $20,000 a year, and only if we meet the guidelines that have yet to be defined (according to my tax accountant). And you wonder why this "stimulus" plan isn't working?

Also, most of the health care reform clauses that will effect small businesses won't even kick in until 2014, so you have plenty of time to strategize.

The tax provisions kick in next year. Perhaps you missed that part.

W-2's in 2011 will include Obamacare Health care costs as income >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com

Any business accepts a certain amount of risk. It's time for the private sector to step up and start doing their part.

People keep screaming for OBAMA to "do something." So he does something, by way of credits and stimulus, and everyone says NO NO NO, that's not what we mean! Yet, they don't define what they mean by DO SOMETHING. Do WHAT? It's clear that the Treasury needs revenue, so out of the gate that means ending the tax cuts and with future budget cutting spending in MAJOR areas, including defense, but those major cuts will take much longer to accomplish than a simple expiration of the second round of Bush's tax cuts. In the meantime, the private sector sits on its collective ass and whines that they don't want to take any chances. Since when? They didn't get where they are by NOT taking chances over the lifetime of their business.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You really need to get together with a tax accountant and have him/her adequately explain what the new tax law (not passed yet, by the way) will mean for small businesses. It is nowhere near as dire as the conservatives in Washington (and their talking heads) would have you believe. This is an outline of the provisions that are still being debated (when Congress returns), with the exception of the $30 billion which the Republicans managed to ding last week.

How can you call something that is not passed yet nowhere near as dire as anything? The problem right now is that we don't know how this is going to impact small business, and that is directly from my tax accountant. I talked about that in another thread, the inability to forecast fixed and variable costs right now.



Interesting talking point. A $5000 credit to hire a new worker that costs at least $20,000 a year, and only if we meet the guidelines that have yet to be defined (according to my tax accountant). And you wonder why this "stimulus" plan isn't working?

Also, most of the health care reform clauses that will effect small businesses won't even kick in until 2014, so you have plenty of time to strategize.

The tax provisions kick in next year. Perhaps you missed that part.

W-2's in 2011 will include Obamacare Health care costs as income >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com

Any business accepts a certain amount of risk. It's time for the private sector to step up and start doing their part.

People keep screaming for OBAMA to "do something." So he does something, by way of credits and stimulus, and everyone says NO NO NO, that's not what we mean! Yet, they don't define what they mean by DO SOMETHING. Do WHAT? It's clear that the Treasury needs revenue, so out of the gate that means ending the tax cuts and with future budget cutting spending in MAJOR areas, including defense, but those major cuts will take much longer to accomplish than a simple expiration of the second round of Bush's tax cuts. In the meantime, the private sector sits on its collective ass and whines that they don't want to take any chances. Since when? They didn't get where they are by NOT taking chances over the lifetime of their business.

Spoken like someone who's never run a business. Businesses takes risks, problem here is, nobody's sure how bad the risks really are. Best guess is that there may be trillions in new taxes loooming around the corner. Hardly an inducement to invest and hire.