? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[ReAmericaNow]

Still can't wrap my head around the "taxes are going up, bot nobody's raising them" thing.

Well it is basic English really...
Raising -> Raise -> to Raise -> Verb
if it is a verb then who is doing it action. What bill is being passed to preform the action.

There is none, and the reason is because no action needs to be preformed. The tax cuts as written will expire.

But if you must have someone to blame....
Then the Republican controlled congress that passed the bill in the first place is the closest you can get to the action of raise. They are the ones that wrote passed and let W sign into law a bill that will one day lead to a raise in taxes.

But no one in power today is raising taxes.

 

[Londoner]

FOX News can't be this powerful.

Bush turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit partly because of his unfunded tax cuts. His jobs creation was worse than any president since Woodrow Wilson.

Clinton managed to pay down the monstrous Reagan/Bush deficits by raising taxes on the richest 2%. The result was the first balanced budget in the modern era and the greatest job growth in decades.

In order to cover the revenue short fall created by his tax cuts, Bush had to borrow billions from China. This is why Greenspan recently admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This is why your non-partisan CBO said the tax cuts added billions to the deficit. The Bush tax cuts essentially bankrupted government. Uncle Milty thought this would lead to a tightening of the belt. But he was wrong, totally wrong (which is why he is such a crackpot). The Republicans borrowed money for 2 wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, and they put your nation in the largest ditch since the Great Depression. (And now -- somehow -- American voters are getting ready to put Republicans back in power. Are you serious? The only people on earth more fiscally insane than the Democrats are the the Republicans. These are the last people on earth Americans should trust. Do you have any idea what kind of increases to military spending they have planned?)

America will not solve its fiscal crisis until the dems cut entitlement spending and reduce the size of government, and the GOP raises taxes on the very wealthy and stops fighting wars against countries that cannot be stabilized with western values. The War on Terrorism has bankrupted you -- but nobody will admit it. Nobody will hold the Bush administration responsible for destroying a financially healthy nation. Seriously, your country was totally destroyed in 8 short years, and everybody knows it, save the Republican base.

Oh yeah, tax cuts: When you give big business tax cuts, they don't add jobs, they increase their lobbying budget. They increase their campaign contributions in order to staff government. This is why Bush's job creation was such a tragic farce -- because there is now a massive disconnect between profits (which are at historic highs) and jobs (historic lows). Don't you get it? The Reagan Model has run its course. It was necessary in the 80s, especially after 40 years of expanding government. But now, after 30 years of Reaganomics, you need fresh thinking.

The American Government is run by and for large corporations --dominated by energy, defense, and finance. Everything is done for their benefit. This arrangement has created the wealthiest CEO class in history, yet American itself is bankrupt. Gee, wonder where all the money went.

(The Game is over. Your country was looted and you still don't see it)

 

[ReAmericaNow]

FOX News can't be this powerful.

Bush turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit partly because of his unfunded tax cuts. His jobs creation was worse than any president since Woodrow Wilson.

Clinton managed to pay down the monstrous Reagan/Bush deficits by raising taxes on the richest 2%. The result was the first balanced budget in the modern era and the greatest job growth in decades.

In order to cover the revenue short fall created by his tax cuts, Bush had to borrow billions from China. This is why Greenspan recently admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This is why your non-partisan CBO said the tax cuts added billions to the deficit.

America will not solve its fiscal crisis until the dems cut entitlement spending and reduce the size of government, and the GOP raises taxes

and the Government is no longer run by and for large corporations.

(Is Talk Radio really this strong. People cannot be this stupid)

When you give big business tax cuts, they don't add jobs, they increase their lobbying budget. This is why Bush's job creation was such a tragic farce. This is why the Bush presidency will cripple not just Obama, but whoever follows.

(The Game is over. Your country was looted)

Here!! Here!!

However, I do fear that the gentlemen at Fox News, and I use that word liberally... well as liberally and you can use the word liberally when referring to Fox News... LoL =P

What I mean is.... I fear they have indoctrinated Americans

But seriously, there is much work that needs to be done. Many wasted dollars that need to be cut (read military budget) and pasted to many places where it would be of better use (read paying Bush's tab and civilian works programs similar to the CCC of FDR)

 

[JBeukema]

1: who is 'they'?

Progressives refusing to admit that they had a Marxist agenda

Have they called for revolution?

and would reject any overtures to nationalizing the means of production in the US

Well, nationalizing the means of production would make it clear they weren't Marxists. A Marxist approach would be more like seizing the factories and then giving them to the workers in them (if they were unable to take them alone). I get the impression you know little of Marxism and what little you 'know' is what you're told be right-wing pundits.

, and anti-war protesters who assured me over and over again that if a Democrat was in office and we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan they would call for his impeachment.

Anyone who said any such thing are idiots, regardless of what they call themselves. You can't make our troops magically disappear without leaving a power vacuum that would make things worse for everyone- including us. Only an idiot with no understanding of history would imply otherwise. That's why we've been trying to get some form of governance and order- no matter how convoluted a bit of patchwork it is becoming- before we leave.

Perhaps I am mistaken.

So who do you like for 2012 right now? Who was your first choice in 2000?

I've heard of no candidate or potential candidate for 2012 (for any office) that really stands apart from the rest of the crap.

I wasn't a voter in 2000. In 2008, I was a Ron Paul supporter. I had no illusion that he'd have been able to do all he pleased. I felt it would be a step in the right direction and would send the right message.

I don't like OSHA.

Like the FDA, it's a good thing that's been turned bad by overreaching 'progressives'.

Public roads are a valid and Constitutional expense. I think it could be more efficient and I think that local taxes should pay for maintenance of local roads, not have federal dollars expanding I-295 because it's a "federal" thoroughfare even though the reason it has to be expanded is because the local traffic has overwhelmed it.

Cities should maintain the sections within the city. The Fed should be limited to coordinating the efforts when the States are unable to agree on where to have the damned roads meet.

Locally funded Fire Departments are wonderful as long as they are sustainable. I want a line item in the tax bill for them

A line item for combined emergency services would be a good thing, imo. Or at least ensure that the budget for police and fire is set and comes first.

As for your bill spending money on global climate change- you'll have to source that.

Public Education is broken. The funding model has allowed a situation where daycare and education is outsourced to government officials and parents are blamed for lazy teachers.

Education failed for several reason, imo:
-Another case of the once-vital unions becoming greedy. The ceased to serve their original purpose and have become rackets.

-Overreaching moronic Progressives with no understanding of the most fundamental aspects financial reality

-Another symptom of the overall social decay our nation is seeing. Parents, in the whole, no longer care or get involved because they've come to expect the State to rear their children for them- a role that many of the authoritarian socialist 'progressives' are glad to take on if it helps them try to mould society to their wishes.

-School districts and parents feel that the Dept. of Edu. will handle everything. Nobody wants to step up and be responsible for the school systems. Everyone passes the buck.

If each State had a department of Education that set standards schools had to meet and required that all teachers make the grade in terms of their own abilities and ensuring their students can pass the States' standardized tests with acceptable scores or lose their certification, things would change. Combined with vouchers to allow parents' to choose the best of the publicly-funded schools and the understanding that any school incapable of competing and attracting students will be defunded and shut down, this would give schools and staff a reason to care.

Any parent wishing to homeschool their child should be so permitted, with the child taking the same tests in a controlled environment to ensure that they are learning. So long as they can meet the same standards when tested in a controlled environment (eg: holding the test at a nearby school with qualified teachers in the room and parents outside), the child should be recognized as passing the exact same grade.

Public education is supposed to be a means for the disadvantaged to achieve a fair shot at a decent education so they can improve their condition. It should not be what it has become: a means of controlling the population, a daycare for anyone under the age of 17, and a chance to properly 'educate' the populace in accordance with the views of those who hold political office.

Reading, writing, arithmetic, and the facts of history. The tools to improve your condition.

Electrification of urban areas? Why is that a government function in your opinion?

Rural. I meant rural. Electrification of rural areas. One role of government is the construction and maintenance of infrastructure (or contracting thereof to private business and the maintenance and administration of such contracts)

Anyone that approves the Financial Reform Law, GM's boondoggle, and the "public option" that is being proposed.

I'm on the record here as opposing all three, and the 'public option' has not been shown to take over any businesses. You seem to be relying on certain talking heads for your understanding of the matter, regardless of how many times their claims are refuted.

Too bad he was inept at using his massive movement to help get others elected. The all or nothing approach to his Presidential pipe dreams has left a very sour taste in my mouth.

His insistence on running as a Republican and not considering the Libertarian ticket or an independent run gave me the impression he wasn't serious. He was far from perfect, but he was the best option I saw out there.

 

[JBeukema]

There is no such thing as 'marxian governance'

Marxian economics are economic theories on the functioning of capitalism based on the works of Karl Marx. Adherents of Marxian economics, particularly in academia, distinguish it from Marxism as a political ideology and sociological theory, arguing that Marx's approach to understanding the economy is intellectually independent of his advocacy of revolutionary socialism or his belief in the proletarian revolution.[1][2] Adherents consider Marx's economic theories to be the basis of a viable analytic framework, and an alternative to more conventional neoclassical economics. Marxian economics do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists; they draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.

Marxian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Marxian is one school upon which I draw, though I draw from it mostly my understanding of the socioeconomic class system. By economic policies are broadly based on the Austrian school, though I am leery of those who call for unabashed capitalism without those regulations designed to protect the People.

We've seen where that leads us.

We've also seen where totalitarian socialism leads us and what happens when Progressives are let off the leash and allowed to enact their visions unrestrained and unchecked by reality.

Read The Science of Liberty. The solution is to learn from past experiments and stick with what works, letting results, not blind ideology, guide us.

In your opinion, what works?[/quopte]

A compromise between federation and confederation. Local governance of all affairs when feasible. Laws designed to inhibit or punish actions which harm others and reform those criminal which can be reformed whilst keeping those who cannot are kept separated from law-abiding citizens. The only taxes, IMO, should be income taxes (including capital gains taxes and taxes on certain benefits, such as the estimated value of your personal use of the company Leerjet). Taxes should be progressive in form and designed so that they do not discourage business (see my post here for an example in-case). Certain social safety nets should exist to protect honest citizens from starving if they become ill or have the misfortune of working for a company which fails. Receipt of assistance should be dependent on your participation in a program to seek gainful employment if you are so able. Those incapable of physical labour should not be allowed to starve, but should also be encouraged to find other means of supporting themselves. Our foreign policy must be less interventionist and more defensive than aggressive. All public officials should be able to be forced out of office with 85% of the popular vote among their constituency. If the People feel betrayed, they shouldn't have to wait for 2 or 4 or 6 years to pass before they can fix things. We need to get the money out of politics.

You'll have to ask about anything else in particular you wish to know my views on.

we should separate the regulators from the entity which is being regulated.

I couldn't agree more. The failure to do that is inexcusable.

I have read The Science of Liberty. History is already quite littered with the attempts to apply the Scientific Method to economics and social dynamics.

You seem to misunderstand. The key portion of scientific reasoning we are to apply to our socioeconomic systems is this: if it's a total failure every time, stop doing it. If it works, stick with it. Let the results, not blind ideology, guide us. The goal is a just society where noone starves and noone is punished for success, in which we are all equal before the law, and where the People rule yet the individual is protected from the whims of the mob and is free. Any policies which further those ends, regardless of who thinks them up, are good policies. Any policies, no matter how beloved the man who thinks of them, which takes us further from that desired state of society, is bad policy. Whatever combination of policies gets us closest is the best system available.

The final chapter about Global Climate Change really pissed me off.

I'm not yet totally finished with the text. I do not agree with all of what I've read, but the heart of the argument as I understand it and have paraphrased above, is simple common sense.

 

[bucs90]

No major corporation will lay anyone off because the tax cuts expire. They'll cut people because the CEO ran the company into the toilet and now wants his bonus.

Look @ the 50's; tax rates for the wealthiest Americans was ludicrous and makes today's rates seem low.

And that same class has only gotten richer and the income gap bigger.

Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

You don't raise taxes on anyone--during an economic downturn. Business is already slow enough--corporations--even wealthy ones--are not making the gross sales or profit that they did in good economic times. They are struggleing too.

The scenario the opt gave you is exact. If your rich employer gets a tax hike because dems. let the Bush tax cuts expire--there is almost a 100% guarantee--they will be looking to cut business expenses--and where they always cut first--is PAYROLL.

You voted for it--you got it!--

But nobody is raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. When milk expires and goes bad, someone did not come to poison the milk. All by itself it expired and went bad. Just like the Bush tax cuts… BAD

SO by that logic......

If a mayor has a bridge built to help the city.......

Then 30 years later that bridge has deteriorated and needs repair to prevent tragedy......

The current mayor and town council can say "Well, we didn't build the bridge, blame Mayor Joe from 30 years ago for building it"??

Obama and the Dems can EXTEND these tax cuts. Bush and the Reps HAD to make them end in 2010 when they passed the bill. What were they gonna do, pass a tax cut bill that allowed the cuts to go on FOREVER???? The political heat would've....well, it couldn't have gotten worse, as the left wing media was rabibly anti-US government from 01-08. But you get the point. All tax raise/cut bills have an ending point.

But, right now, the Dem's have the "bridge" in their hands. It needs repair (extension) to handle our current situation. But no, you guys are actually blaming Bush, again, for this one. When all you morons have to do is pass it.

But the problem is, once you do that, you lose your convenient political football of "Bush cut taxes for the wealthy!!!!". If you do it, then you also cut the same taxes for the same wealthy. And lose your talking point.

And thats the conflict the Dem's face right now. Do whats economically smart, or keep their talking point. Sadly, they are having trouble deciding, but it doesn't suprise me.

 

[bucs90]

FOX News can't be this powerful.

Bush turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit partly because of his unfunded tax cuts. His jobs creation was worse than any president since Woodrow Wilson.

Clinton managed to pay down the monstrous Reagan/Bush deficits by raising taxes on the richest 2%. The result was the first balanced budget in the modern era and the greatest job growth in decades.

In order to cover the revenue short fall created by his tax cuts, Bush had to borrow billions from China. This is why Greenspan recently admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. This is why your non-partisan CBO said the tax cuts added billions to the deficit.

America will not solve its fiscal crisis until the dems cut entitlement spending and reduce the size of government, and the GOP raises taxes

and the Government is no longer run by and for large corporations.

(Is Talk Radio really this strong. People cannot be this stupid)

When you give big business tax cuts, they don't add jobs, they increase their lobbying budget. This is why Bush's job creation was such a tragic farce. This is why the Bush presidency will cripple not just Obama, but whoever follows.

(The Game is over. Your country was looted)

Here!! Here!!

However, I do fear that the gentlemen at Fox News, and I use that word liberally... well as liberally and you can use the word liberally when referring to Fox News... LoL =P

What I mean is.... I fear they have indoctrinated Americans

But seriously, there is much work that needs to be done. Many wasted dollars that need to be cut (read military budget) and pasted to many places where it would be of better use (read paying Bush's tab and civilian works programs similar to the CCC of FDR)

Yes. Evil Fox News.

Because the rest of the media was in on "Journolist", the group of over 400 media folks conspiring to get their favorite candidate elected, conspiring to attack Palin, and conspiring to issue blanket cries of racism against anyone who opposed Obama. Had they spent that much research time finding out who Obama's friends were, he may not have been elected. But no, all but Fox joined on Journolist to blatantly slant the news in favor of their personal choice for president.

Journalistic integrity at it's finest. But somehow, Fox is the corrupt one.

 

[JBeukema]

Ugghh........rightwinger, I'd say you disappoint me, but you didn't, I expected it. You're now the second liberal to make the argument that the company profits will be taxed, not it's employee salaries, thus no jobs will be lost.

For a second time liberals: Employees are hired and paid by a company turning larger profits. How do you think "business" expenses are paid? The private sector is NOT GOVERNMENT. It cannot just run off debt and keep going farther in debt. Business needs profit to pay and expand workforces.

If you jack up taxes on a business, then that business must still pay it's expenses somehow. Layoffs maybe. Make the remaining workers "do more with less". Think the private sector has never done that before? Think again. Think CEO's will just cut their own salary in half? Think again. NO person would do that, CEO or janitor.

See, when government goes into debt, they just pay workers anyway, expand, print money, and go farther into debt.

You libs gotta realize the private sector isn't the government. They can't operate off debt and more debt and more debt. If you TAKE money from them, they must downsize somehow to offset the cost.

Eventually, you always run out of other peoples money.

taxes will expire on INDIVIDUALS not on businesses. If u own a small business, there are ways around paying taxes, even on the profit....you can hire another employee, you can pay yourself as an employee instead of just taking the lump sum profit of your business and reporting it as income, you can reinvest in your own business to grow it, you can buy needed equipment etc etc etc....ALL of which is tax deductible for your business....

But let's say you do all of that, and you still take all of the business's profit for your own individual use and not the business's each year....and let's say you end up having $400,000 as your combined yearly income, if the individual income tax break expires this means you will have to pay+/- 4% more tax than now on $150k, ($400k minus the $250k which is where the tax hike is suppose to begin), and 4% more on this $150k is just $6,000 more than what you pay now with the bush tax break staying in tact.

in the BIG picture, that $6k more is doodley squat.

And secondly, you say taxes are only gonna be raised on individuals, not business. Well, I'd disagree, but I'll play along for sake of debate.

Lets say a 10 person board of ceos has a business. And all their individual taxes went up this year. They all earn less. So when it comes time to adjust salaries, they'll just up their own salary so they can maintain their lifestyle.

See, there is a personal status quo for each of us. And if a wealthy person takes a tax hike, but can give themselves a raise through the business they run or work as CEO for, they'll do it. No one wants to lower their own standard of living. I don't expect anyone to. If I were a CEO, I'd also want a big bonus to guarantee I could provide my family with the lifestyle they are used to for many many years. Wouldn't you do the same? No one wants their lifestyle to go down.

.

You're making a great case for the CEOS (read: bourgeoisie) being the problem here

 

[JBeukema]

So, in summary:

Taxes are going up, but nobody's raising taxes. Bush sucks!

That pretty much cover it?

Close, but no... I would not blame it all on Bush, Regan screwed things up just as bad.

Still can't wrap my head around the "taxes are going up, bot nobody's raising them" thing.

I throw a ball in the air


the ball goes up


it pauses


it falls


the ball is falling, but nobody dropped it out a window

 

[bucs90]

taxes will expire on INDIVIDUALS not on businesses. If u own a small business, there are ways around paying taxes, even on the profit....you can hire another employee, you can pay yourself as an employee instead of just taking the lump sum profit of your business and reporting it as income, you can reinvest in your own business to grow it, you can buy needed equipment etc etc etc....ALL of which is tax deductible for your business....

But let's say you do all of that, and you still take all of the business's profit for your own individual use and not the business's each year....and let's say you end up having $400,000 as your combined yearly income, if the individual income tax break expires this means you will have to pay+/- 4% more tax than now on $150k, ($400k minus the $250k which is where the tax hike is suppose to begin), and 4% more on this $150k is just $6,000 more than what you pay now with the bush tax break staying in tact.

in the BIG picture, that $6k more is doodley squat.

And secondly, you say taxes are only gonna be raised on individuals, not business. Well, I'd disagree, but I'll play along for sake of debate.

Lets say a 10 person board of ceos has a business. And all their individual taxes went up this year. They all earn less. So when it comes time to adjust salaries, they'll just up their own salary so they can maintain their lifestyle.

See, there is a personal status quo for each of us. And if a wealthy person takes a tax hike, but can give themselves a raise through the business they run or work as CEO for, they'll do it. No one wants to lower their own standard of living. I don't expect anyone to. If I were a CEO, I'd also want a big bonus to guarantee I could provide my family with the lifestyle they are used to for many many years. Wouldn't you do the same? No one wants their lifestyle to go down.

.

You're making a great case for the CEOS (read: bourgeoisie) being the problem here

Well, in a way, yes, but also no. I admit many CEO's are greedy. After all, becoming a CEO takes years and years of brutally hard hours, neglecting one's social and personal life, tons and tons of work, politiking (my word) inside the business circle, and some luck. Only a somewhat greedy or power hungry individual would go through that to become a CEO.

But my bigger point is human nature. Sometimes we just have to admit and accept a certain part of human nature. None of us wants to give up our personal status quo. For us or our family. A middle class family doesn't want to give up their 4 bedroom home with each of 3 kids having their own room in exchange for a 2 bedroom in which the kids have to share 1 room, right? Even if they thought they money they sacrificed would go to a good cause, no one really wants to do that. Well, rich people aren't any different. They like their property as much as any of us. So if money is taken from them, they'll make it up any way they can, just as any of us would.

So at some point, we must analyze some things.

1- We need more jobs to be created.
2- Rich companies and rich people can provide those.
3- Taking more money from the rich will prevent that from happening.


A greedy CEO is no more morally wrong than a greedy welfare queen who wants an extra $100 a week. They both want to keep and improve their own status quo.

But the bottom line is for American companies to hire lots of workers, they need to be competitive and successful in the global market. For that to happen, they need to be well run, by people who have succeeded in life and for good decisions to be made. People like that rise to the top through an ultra competitive ladder within rich companies, and the best will come out on top. Why? Because they want that high CEO pay and power. Take that away, and mediocre people, or only power hungry people, will rise, the company is run less efficient and less competitive, company struggles in the global market, less hiring, etc, etc.

Just like Jack Nicholas in "A Few Good Men" when he says "You need me on that wall, you want me on that wall". He was a foul, vulgar man in that movie, but dammit, he was right. There is a place for the people we love to loathe. And a greedy CEO has a place, because he is driven by money. People like that, who think like that, (like Donald Trump) can make a business wildly profitable. And that creates jobs.

I equate it to the job of an NFL football coach. That is a brutal job. Insane hours, insane stress, incredibly competitive. What if 30 out of 32 teams stayed as is, but 2 of those teams cut their head coaches pay to $50,000 a year. They would get mediocre guys in there, and be less competitive.

There are certain places we "need them on that wall". Massive corporations need greedy, business saavy men at the top.

 

[bucs90]

Close, but no... I would not blame it all on Bush, Regan screwed things up just as bad.

Still can't wrap my head around the "taxes are going up, bot nobody's raising them" thing.

I throw a ball in the air


the ball goes up


it pauses


it falls


the ball is falling, but nobody dropped it out a window

So, if I am driving by a house, and it is on fire, I shouldn't call the fire department because, "hey, I didn't set the fire".

All Dems have to do is extend the tax cuts. It's right thing to do, vs keeping their talking point. Which will they pick?

The Dem's logic on this is seriously flawed. It really is like saying they shouldn't have to keep up maintenance on a bridge because they weren't the ones who built it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Why would a company do that?

Employee salaries aren't taxed. Profits are taxed.

And what percent of any company's employees are in the top 2 brackets? My employer would have zero in those brackets.

Holy Jesus H Christ.

Folks, THAT quote right there sums up the leftwing liberal brain:

QUOTE: "Employee salaries aren't taxed. Profits are taxed."

Hey, BREAKING NEWS for liberals: Companies pay employee salaries with profits. Wanna hire 10 new employees? Gotta make more profit. Lose a bunch of profit? Gotta downsize.

My God, you libs have absolutely no clue how the world works do you?

No companies don't pay employees with profits. Profits are what you have left after you've paid your employees and every other cost of doing business.

If you had 300,000 dollars in profit last year and 100,000 of it is in the top bracket, if your tax on that profit goes from 36,000 to 39,000,

laying off an employee doesn't get you anything, except less production.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Why would a company do that?

Employee salaries aren't taxed. Profits are taxed.

And what percent of any company's employees are in the top 2 brackets? My employer would have zero in those brackets.

Holy Jesus H Christ.

Folks, THAT quote right there sums up the leftwing liberal brain:

QUOTE: "Employee salaries aren't taxed. Profits are taxed."

Hey, BREAKING NEWS for liberals: Companies pay employee salaries with profits. Wanna hire 10 new employees? Gotta make more profit. Lose a bunch of profit? Gotta downsize.

My God, you libs have absolutely no clue how the world works do you?

You hire people to generate profits genius.

 

[midcan5]

There are no negative consequences!

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."


Tax cuts spur economic growth




"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

'America Builds an Aristocracy' by Ray D. Madoff

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/opinion/12madoff.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

How Inequality Fueled the Crisis - Project Syndicate

"The broader implication is that we need to look beyond greedy bankers and spineless regulators (and there were plenty of both) for the root causes of this crisis. And the problems are not solved with a financial regulatory bill entrusting more powers to those regulators. America needs to tackle inequality at its root, by giving more Americans the ability to compete in the global marketplace. This is much harder than doling out credit, but more effective in the long run."

'How Inequality Fueled the Crisis' by Raghuram Rajan

'No age of austerity for the rich' by Sasha Abramsky

"If austerity implies shared sacrifice to preserve a shared public sphere, America isn't really experiencing such an age"

No age of austerity for the rich | Sasha Abramsky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[ReAmericaNow]

You don't raise taxes on anyone--during an economic downturn. Business is already slow enough--corporations--even wealthy ones--are not making the gross sales or profit that they did in good economic times. They are struggleing too.

The scenario the opt gave you is exact. If your rich employer gets a tax hike because dems. let the Bush tax cuts expire--there is almost a 100% guarantee--they will be looking to cut business expenses--and where they always cut first--is PAYROLL.

You voted for it--you got it!--

But nobody is raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. When milk expires and goes bad, someone did not come to poison the milk. All by itself it expired and went bad. Just like the Bush tax cuts… BAD

SO by that logic......

If a mayor has a bridge built to help the city.......

Then 30 years later that bridge has deteriorated and needs repair to prevent tragedy......

The current mayor and town council can say "Well, we didn't build the bridge, blame Mayor Joe from 30 years ago for building it"??

Obama and the Dems can EXTEND these tax cuts. Bush and the Reps HAD to make them end in 2010 when they passed the bill. What were they gonna do, pass a tax cut bill that allowed the cuts to go on FOREVER???? The political heat would've....well, it couldn't have gotten worse, as the left wing media was rabibly anti-US government from 01-08. But you get the point. All tax raise/cut bills have an ending point.

But, right now, the Dem's have the "bridge" in their hands. It needs repair (extension) to handle our current situation. But no, you guys are actually blaming Bush, again, for this one. When all you morons have to do is pass it.

But the problem is, once you do that, you lose your convenient political football of "Bush cut taxes for the wealthy!!!!". If you do it, then you also cut the same taxes for the same wealthy. And lose your talking point.

And thats the conflict the Dem's face right now. Do whats economically smart, or keep their talking point. Sadly, they are having trouble deciding, but it doesn't suprise me.

If we were to use your bridge analogy, then why not just make the tax cuts permanent, why did they HAVE to put an expiration date on it, if they did not want it to expire. You think that they did it because the left is so powerful. Honestly I don’t see the left wield any power. We may rant, we may rave and stomp our feet. But you do not see the left threaten the lives of members of congress, you do not see the left, force its agenda on America. And before you say anything, the left is not doing that. Do not confuse liberal with the Democrats. If we (the real left) was wielding any power America be a single payer system for health care.
So do I want to let the tax cuts end. Yes!! And do I also want to RAISE taxes on the top 10% YES!!! But those are two separate things.

 

[daveman]

Still can't wrap my head around the "taxes are going up, bot nobody's raising them" thing.

Well it is basic English really...
Raising -> Raise -> to Raise -> Verb
if it is a verb then who is doing it action. What bill is being passed to preform the action.

There is none, and the reason is because no action needs to be preformed. The tax cuts as written will expire.

But if you must have someone to blame....
Then the Republican controlled congress that passed the bill in the first place is the closest you can get to the action of raise. They are the ones that wrote passed and let W sign into law a bill that will one day lead to a raise in taxes.

But no one in power today is raising taxes.

Uh huh.

 

[boedicca]

In Bernanke's Q&A this morning, he was asked a question about what caused the Great Depression. He broke the answer into two parts for the phase beginning in 1929 and the one in 1937. Tight money played a role in both. For the second, he specifically mentioned that increased taxes contributed to sending the country back into a recession, which, but for the U.S. entering WWII in 1941, may have continued.

Raising taxes right now will just chill the economy further. It's insanity if you care about the millions of people who are out of work.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Soooooooooooooooo....the boss is keeping you on because his annual payment to the government is 3% lower than it was a decade ago?

I bet it's your Monica Lewinsky act on the boss that keeps you employed...

 

[Rozman]

Soooooooooooooooo....the boss is keeping you on because his annual payment to the government is 3% lower than it was a decade ago?

Maybe,maybe not,but do you want to bet your job on the fact that the Boss will now have to pay more in taxes then before....This on top of a lousy Obama economy...I wouldn't...

 

[asterism]

Soooooooooooooooo....the boss is keeping you on because his annual payment to the government is 3% lower than it was a decade ago?

Maybe,maybe not,but do you want to bet your job on the fact that the Boss will now have to pay more in taxes then before....This on top of a lousy Obama economy...I wouldn't...

That does distill the discussion a bit huh?

What would you rather have:

A boss in a down economy with less money

A boss in a down economy with more money

poll here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/127460-what-would-you-rather-have.html