Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael RamirezNo Zoom

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago

    Folks $250000 or $500000 is nothing. A small business the average person makes $28000 you have 10 employees that makes it about $280000. Then businesses have the same thing as a house has a mortgage. It is not like your house mortgage a little $2000 a month make it $15000 a month or $330000 a year.

    Then you have bills for your suppliers office supplies replacement parts for say a lube shop. Oil, oil filters air filters let say that is another $20000 a month that comes out to $240000.

    $280000 Payroll $330000 Mortgage Building and Equipment $240000 Services and Supplies. ———— $940000 Total

    This is only for one year. To top it off few lube owners make any were close to $250000 a year. Thank about it Obama just wanted to go after what he thought was an easy target; it will not create enough revenue to make a difference.

    Yea the strip has got it right.

  2. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 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/

  3. Redeemd

    Redeemd said, almost 4 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.

  4. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    How can I live without me trinkets?

  5. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago

    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”.

    You say “Democrats have passed 25 tax cuts aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses”. Very true but the Democrats have also raised taxes in other areas. So we have record unemployment and record cost also known as deficits.

    “Obama compromised on making a tax cut for businesses that hire.” True but still no one is hiring, it simply is not enough.

    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.

    Redeemd

    Thank you.

    senorbullwinkle

    And government is not working because…

  6. alcors3

    alcors3 said, almost 4 years ago

    Free speech? Every time O talks it costs U.S. money

  7. bobwinners

    bobwinners GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Heck, Congress burned that book a very long time ago.

  8. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 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.

  9. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago

    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?

    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/13/a-real-small-business-assist

    As for: My statement:

    “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”.”

    Then you replied:

    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.

    So if I understand you, you think you are entitled to decide what my first comment meant which was:

    “To top it off few lube owners make any were close to $250000 a year. Thank about it Obama just wanted to go after what he thought was an easy target; it will not create enough revenue to make a difference”.

    Also yes most businesses will be hurt please see my link at the top of this post.

    As for your last point I don’t want you to take my words on this take James Madison words from the federalist papers number 62.

    “What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?”

    Sorry but this is how I see the issue.

  10. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 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.

  11. 4uk4ata

    4uk4ata said, almost 4 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.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Just burn the book on “Reaganomics” and it will fix most everything.

  13. W(ar).Crime

    W(ar).Crime said, almost 4 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!!!!

  14. rottenprat

    rottenprat said, almost 4 years ago

    So long as stocks drop because a company made $20B when analysts forecasted $25B our economy will remain broken.

  15. myming

    myming GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    REDEEMD -

    and if the government and religion are seperate…

  16. Load the rest of the comments (11).