When you put it that way, it almost seems like every single small business would be affected by the tax cuts.
I wonder…
“3% of wealthy are “small business owners.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
“Democrats have passed 25 tax cuts aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/
“Obama compromised on making a tax cut for businesses that hire.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/
“Pants on fire: 94% of small businesses would be hit by higher taxes under Democrat plans.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/
“98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000” and would not see a tax increase under Barack Obama’s plan.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
“So we have record unemployment and record cost also known as deficits.”
Bush left office with a surging unemployment around 8%. Unemployment is tied to companies trying to work with less people while retaining their profits. Now, part of that is also tied to the fact that few suck on the fat of their companies. For example, if 1 person makes 400+ times the average salary of their employees, and then you have several people who are all up near that pay bracket, you can do a couple of things: you can take a more reasonable salary, or you can dump ~1000 workers. We know which sounds more noble… we also know which one actually happened.
Oh, sure, but there a couple of CEOs have taken figurehead amounts by saying they’ll only take $1 salaries so as to not fire a multitude of people, but those’re few and far between.
Citation, please, on raised taxes. Dems have lowered taxes through the Stimulus bill.
“Jade you prove my point with your first statement. 3% of the wealthy are small business owners. As I stated “it will not create enough revenue to make a difference”.”
I think you’re misreading this. 3% of the wealthy are small business owners. This means that raising taxes on the wealthy will not harm small businesses, which as both sides recognize, are the primary drivers of employment.
As for “not creating enough revenue to make a difference,” not only does the CBO disagree with you, but you can find numerous graphs, charts, et. al, across the Internet which will be somewhat similar to this: http://dailyhurricane.com/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.gif
“True but still no one is hiring, it simply is not enough.”
The government can’t make people hire. The majority of the problem is with the executives of the company.
“As for you last two statements my Dad and Brother-in-law own a small business together and they make a lot less then $250000. They don’t make $250000 together. They say there taxes are going up.””
They can say what they want. I can say my taxes are going up. Income taxes for no one but the top financial brackets are scheduled to go up.
“So if I understand you, you think you are entitled to decide what my first comment meant which was:”
If your response to statement concerning the 3% of wealthy vs. revenues gained by raising taxes was misunderstood, then kindly elaborate on where the misunderstanding is. I have since reread it, like I do with any post I write, and do not see how I misunderstood your statement pertaining to revenue vs. percentage of small business owners.
“Jade on the original point I could not find this at the time but what about having to file on any purchases of over $600. What company can afford to do that?”
I do believe there are some things in the works concerning that. I do not know the specifics. Something about being able to write off equipment purchases. As for book-keeping, that’s a specific I will not delve into without more information.
“What prudent … ””
I do not see how this is the failing of government. Government can only and should only do but so much. If wages for the top bracket brackets continue to spiral upwards at incredible rates and the total wealth distributed to the “commoners” [read: 95% of the country’s population] continues to diminish… I do not understand what it is that government is supposed to be able to do to fix that (other than constantly giving them more, as we continue to do). Eventually there will be nothing left for the majority of have-nots, what then?
Since our government is not supposed to interfere in private affairs and people, in general, do not police themselves very well (look what happened with derivatives, mortgages, and banking, for example), I don’t see how this is really a failing of government. Sure, government fails, but it also does well. It’s certainly not because of the benevolence of employers that people don’t have to work 120 hour weeks or something like that to hold down jobs or work for only 2 dollars an hour while corporate makes billions.
The rich do not police themselves and we continue to subsidize their greed. Your quote lists farmers. We subsidize farmers, too… to produce less than they’re capable of because it keeps food at a certain price so that the farmers don’t go broke by producing what their land is capable of. There’re all sorts of things going on.
Edit: And no, by saying “the rich” do not absolve the poor of their failings. The subject here, however, is the expiration of a temporary tax cut for the upper income brackets.
In my opinion, they ALL need to expire, though, if we actually care about or deficits.
Apparently, Ramirez thinks his own economic views are “economics 101”. Then again, I’d say quite a few economic students might disagree with some of his own ideas, such as:
Long-term tax cuts during a war and recession are sustainable and beneficial policy. Almost every sensible economist has noted that they would increase deficits - but so what?
During a period of near deflation and high unemployment, government spending is a bad idea.
During a period of economic crisis, cuts in infrastructure and education are a good idea, but defense spending must increase.
There is some truth to this toon. When you’re listening to supply side economist (those who follow Milton Friedman) you literally are burning the econ 101 book, which states that demand, not tax cuts, stimulates an economy.
@ Church - actually, that might be technically right. Allowing tax cuts to expire as planned is not the same as PROPOSING a tax hike. Is it possible that he changed his mind, say due to the deficit becoming such a polarizing issue? Sure, but I think this quote might have been taken out of context anyway.
First off, the Republicans are the ones burning Economics 101, saying that tax cuts do not affect deficits. That’s idiotic, and you can’t find ANY economist who believes it.
And Jack, your analysis is completely ignorant of reality. If a small business has employees, any salary paid out to them is not taxable. It’s a business expense. Anything else spent on the business is not taxable. Only if the owner KEEPS over $250,000 will their taxes go up. And the owners will get the same tax cuts as everyone else on that first $250,000.
The only businesses with this model are lawyers firms and medical specialists. I believe they can afford to pay what they did ten years ago before the cuts.
Your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of business economics.
Ugh, either the guy has bought in the economic cool-aid or he’s faking it for the cameras. Congratulations, America, there’s your marxist.
Still, he is technically right - there have been no proposals for a tax hike. What has been discussed is allowing an existing tax CUT to expire. Not to mention that the US economy, unsteady as it is, does not meet the standard criterion for a recession - two subsequent quarters of falling GDP - since late 2009.
Yeah, I see your point - it’s mincing words, and I can understand people being unhappy about it. However, technically he hasn’t lied - they didn’t propose a hike, and if the tax cut does expire it would most likely (barring a new economic downturn) not happen during a recession.
Yeah, I can imagine you not being satisfied with that. Hey, I’m not satisfied with him bending over to popular conception that tax hikes are antithetical to GDP growth, period. Hey, did the US cut taxes and rein in deficit during the early 30s or WWII? I don’t think it did, really.
I rather doubt he would. When Walter Mondale told people both he and Reagan would raise taxes, but he was willing to tell them that upfront, how did that work for him? I’d like to hear a lot of people say a lot of things that are actually true, but that’s politics for you. Just like everyone’s so sure that, screw the deficit and the poor economy, we mustn’t touch defense spending.
He didn’t handle that interview well, I believe, but maybe he didn’t anticipate that the end of the tax cuts would be brought up as a tax hike. Well, we’ll see how this will be spun.
Really? Would that be like those naughty history books that consider McCarthy less than a shining example of American values, or the Law and Order books with the “pre-9/11” viewpoint on issues such as civil rights or torture?
Hey, the likes of Alberto Gonzales and Rove, and you want to scare people with ALINSKY? Oh, the horror! The desolation! The tragedy, indeed! This madman, this fiend wrote a book on (nonviolent) popular protests!
Funny how the book was so soul-wrenchingly left-wing that the Tea party used the advice there as well…
Well, I don’t know about “we”, but “you” might be - can you point to where he advocated violence? He has penned a book on civil protests, you know, and while these may occasionally have a few hotheads, it is not them that his views apply to. Alinsky’s rules specifically focus on gathering public support for a certain idea. Yes, his advice deals with confrontation - in order to wrest concessions from more powerful entities. Not every conflict is a violent one.
His idea is that power lies with money, and with the people - and his rules are for those who don’t have the money. Ergo, they must find ways to get the people on their side. That’s something any activist, on any side, could use - and many have.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
When you put it that way, it almost seems like every single small business would be affected by the tax cuts.
I wonder… “3% of wealthy are “small business owners.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
“Democrats have passed 25 tax cuts aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/
“Obama compromised on making a tax cut for businesses that hire.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/
“Pants on fire: 94% of small businesses would be hit by higher taxes under Democrat plans.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/
“98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000” and would not see a tax increase under Barack Obama’s plan.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
Redeemd over 13 years ago
Well he gets an ‘A’ for effort, ‘F’ for results.
Unfortunately borrowing trillions from the Chinese so that Americans can buy more Chinese trinkets just makes things worse.
America will only succeed and prosper if government gets out of the way of small business.
alcors3 over 13 years ago
Free speech? Every time O talks it costs U.S. money
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“So we have record unemployment and record cost also known as deficits.”
Bush left office with a surging unemployment around 8%. Unemployment is tied to companies trying to work with less people while retaining their profits. Now, part of that is also tied to the fact that few suck on the fat of their companies. For example, if 1 person makes 400+ times the average salary of their employees, and then you have several people who are all up near that pay bracket, you can do a couple of things: you can take a more reasonable salary, or you can dump ~1000 workers. We know which sounds more noble… we also know which one actually happened. Oh, sure, but there a couple of CEOs have taken figurehead amounts by saying they’ll only take $1 salaries so as to not fire a multitude of people, but those’re few and far between. Citation, please, on raised taxes. Dems have lowered taxes through the Stimulus bill.“Jade you prove my point with your first statement. 3% of the wealthy are small business owners. As I stated “it will not create enough revenue to make a difference”.”
I think you’re misreading this. 3% of the wealthy are small business owners. This means that raising taxes on the wealthy will not harm small businesses, which as both sides recognize, are the primary drivers of employment. As for “not creating enough revenue to make a difference,” not only does the CBO disagree with you, but you can find numerous graphs, charts, et. al, across the Internet which will be somewhat similar to this: http://dailyhurricane.com/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.gif“True but still no one is hiring, it simply is not enough.”
The government can’t make people hire. The majority of the problem is with the executives of the company.“As for you last two statements my Dad and Brother-in-law own a small business together and they make a lot less then $250000. They don’t make $250000 together. They say there taxes are going up.””
They can say what they want. I can say my taxes are going up. Income taxes for no one but the top financial brackets are scheduled to go up.Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“So if I understand you, you think you are entitled to decide what my first comment meant which was:”
If your response to statement concerning the 3% of wealthy vs. revenues gained by raising taxes was misunderstood, then kindly elaborate on where the misunderstanding is. I have since reread it, like I do with any post I write, and do not see how I misunderstood your statement pertaining to revenue vs. percentage of small business owners.“Jade on the original point I could not find this at the time but what about having to file on any purchases of over $600. What company can afford to do that?”
I do believe there are some things in the works concerning that. I do not know the specifics. Something about being able to write off equipment purchases. As for book-keeping, that’s a specific I will not delve into without more information.“What prudent … ””
I do not see how this is the failing of government. Government can only and should only do but so much. If wages for the top bracket brackets continue to spiral upwards at incredible rates and the total wealth distributed to the “commoners” [read: 95% of the country’s population] continues to diminish… I do not understand what it is that government is supposed to be able to do to fix that (other than constantly giving them more, as we continue to do). Eventually there will be nothing left for the majority of have-nots, what then? Since our government is not supposed to interfere in private affairs and people, in general, do not police themselves very well (look what happened with derivatives, mortgages, and banking, for example), I don’t see how this is really a failing of government. Sure, government fails, but it also does well. It’s certainly not because of the benevolence of employers that people don’t have to work 120 hour weeks or something like that to hold down jobs or work for only 2 dollars an hour while corporate makes billions. The rich do not police themselves and we continue to subsidize their greed. Your quote lists farmers. We subsidize farmers, too… to produce less than they’re capable of because it keeps food at a certain price so that the farmers don’t go broke by producing what their land is capable of. There’re all sorts of things going on.Edit: And no, by saying “the rich” do not absolve the poor of their failings. The subject here, however, is the expiration of a temporary tax cut for the upper income brackets.
In my opinion, they ALL need to expire, though, if we actually care about or deficits.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
Apparently, Ramirez thinks his own economic views are “economics 101”. Then again, I’d say quite a few economic students might disagree with some of his own ideas, such as:
Long-term tax cuts during a war and recession are sustainable and beneficial policy. Almost every sensible economist has noted that they would increase deficits - but so what?
During a period of near deflation and high unemployment, government spending is a bad idea.
During a period of economic crisis, cuts in infrastructure and education are a good idea, but defense spending must increase.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Just burn the book on “Reaganomics” and it will fix most everything.
WarBush over 13 years ago
There is some truth to this toon. When you’re listening to supply side economist (those who follow Milton Friedman) you literally are burning the econ 101 book, which states that demand, not tax cuts, stimulates an economy.
Bring back the jobs from China!!!!
rottenprat over 13 years ago
So long as stocks drop because a company made $20B when analysts forecasted $25B our economy will remain broken.
myming over 13 years ago
REDEEMD -
and if the government and religion are seperate…
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
@ Church - actually, that might be technically right. Allowing tax cuts to expire as planned is not the same as PROPOSING a tax hike. Is it possible that he changed his mind, say due to the deficit becoming such a polarizing issue? Sure, but I think this quote might have been taken out of context anyway.
ARodney over 13 years ago
First off, the Republicans are the ones burning Economics 101, saying that tax cuts do not affect deficits. That’s idiotic, and you can’t find ANY economist who believes it.
And Jack, your analysis is completely ignorant of reality. If a small business has employees, any salary paid out to them is not taxable. It’s a business expense. Anything else spent on the business is not taxable. Only if the owner KEEPS over $250,000 will their taxes go up. And the owners will get the same tax cuts as everyone else on that first $250,000.
The only businesses with this model are lawyers firms and medical specialists. I believe they can afford to pay what they did ten years ago before the cuts.
Your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of business economics.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
Ugh, either the guy has bought in the economic cool-aid or he’s faking it for the cameras. Congratulations, America, there’s your marxist.
Still, he is technically right - there have been no proposals for a tax hike. What has been discussed is allowing an existing tax CUT to expire. Not to mention that the US economy, unsteady as it is, does not meet the standard criterion for a recession - two subsequent quarters of falling GDP - since late 2009.
Yeah, I see your point - it’s mincing words, and I can understand people being unhappy about it. However, technically he hasn’t lied - they didn’t propose a hike, and if the tax cut does expire it would most likely (barring a new economic downturn) not happen during a recession.
Yeah, I can imagine you not being satisfied with that. Hey, I’m not satisfied with him bending over to popular conception that tax hikes are antithetical to GDP growth, period. Hey, did the US cut taxes and rein in deficit during the early 30s or WWII? I don’t think it did, really.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
I rather doubt he would. When Walter Mondale told people both he and Reagan would raise taxes, but he was willing to tell them that upfront, how did that work for him? I’d like to hear a lot of people say a lot of things that are actually true, but that’s politics for you. Just like everyone’s so sure that, screw the deficit and the poor economy, we mustn’t touch defense spending.
He didn’t handle that interview well, I believe, but maybe he didn’t anticipate that the end of the tax cuts would be brought up as a tax hike. Well, we’ll see how this will be spun.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
Book Burning at the White House would include American History books, the Constitution, and Law and Order books.
the Obama administration is using Alinsky’s guide for radicals, and radical economic and history books.
9/15/10 “Obama’s Washington Animal Farm” article explains Obama’s wrong ideas….at www.nationalreview.com
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
Really? Would that be like those naughty history books that consider McCarthy less than a shining example of American values, or the Law and Order books with the “pre-9/11” viewpoint on issues such as civil rights or torture?
Hey, the likes of Alberto Gonzales and Rove, and you want to scare people with ALINSKY? Oh, the horror! The desolation! The tragedy, indeed! This madman, this fiend wrote a book on (nonviolent) popular protests!
Funny how the book was so soul-wrenchingly left-wing that the Tea party used the advice there as well…
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
Well, I don’t know about “we”, but “you” might be - can you point to where he advocated violence? He has penned a book on civil protests, you know, and while these may occasionally have a few hotheads, it is not them that his views apply to. Alinsky’s rules specifically focus on gathering public support for a certain idea. Yes, his advice deals with confrontation - in order to wrest concessions from more powerful entities. Not every conflict is a violent one.
His idea is that power lies with money, and with the people - and his rules are for those who don’t have the money. Ergo, they must find ways to get the people on their side. That’s something any activist, on any side, could use - and many have.