|
6 months from the largest tax increases in history (pg. 7)
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The stimulus was just to stop the bleeding, not to spur growth. |
That's not at all what Obama and Biden were touting when trying to push the bill through. It was going to stimulate all kinds of economic growth and infrastructure advancement.
Obama: February 9th, 2009:
| quote: | | It is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jump-start our economy and transform it for the 21st century. |
Now that it's an abject failure, the message has changed to, "Well, uh, without passing it things would have been a lot worse!" Really? They can say that with no real ability to know if it's true or not. But this much is true: 1/6 Americans get government aid now... including 40 million on food stamps, up 50% from pre-stimulus days.
Oh, and this.
-Dark blue line: with the Stimulus, we were told unemployment wouldn't eclipse 8%
-Light blue line: what we were told would happen if it wasn't passed.
-The red line is where we actually are with it.
| quote: | | It was nearly 50% tax cuts |
:stongue:
for? |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| Kevin, you're faulting the Obama Administration for using rhetoric? Their only fault was making a macro-economic prediction, when the fact is, not even professional economists get macro-economic predictions correct most of the time. The fact that unemployment is 9.6% is nothing more than that. How Obama is responsible for that, is beyond me. In the Great Recession, when the financial system is nothing more than simply stabilized, you expect full employment? That's woefully unrealistic. To me, it's nothing more than an excuse for the right wing to complain about how Obama is the incarnation of the Anti-Christ, Hitler, and Lenin. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
To me, it's nothing more than an excuse for the right wing to complain about how Obama is the incarnation of the Anti-Christ, Hitler, and Lenin. |
No, he's just woefully unqualified to manage, let alone lead. And he panders to the worst of the left. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
That's not at all what Obama and Biden were touting when trying to push the bill through. It was going to stimulate all kinds of economic growth and infrastructure advancement.
Obama: February 9th, 2009:
|
And that's precisely why Obama was hit from the left by economists like Krugman, Easterly, Stiglitz, etc.
95% of Americans.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lus-made-it-so/ |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
No, he's just woefully unqualified to manage, let alone lead. And he panders to the worst of the left. |
You're joking, right? I honestly think the liberal establishment hates Obama more than you do. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're joking, right? I honestly think the liberal establishment hates Obama more than you do. |
I sleep with an image of PrezBo sucking Nancy Pelosi's withering 70 year old clitwhile Harry Reid gives him a reach-around. I just watched him give a shout-out to Dennis Kucinich today. But if the rest of the left hates him more than I do....eesh! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I sleep with an image of PrezBo sucking Nancy Pelosi's withering 70 year old clitwhile Harry Reid gives him a reach-around. I just watched him give a shout-out to Dennis Kucinich today. But if the rest of the left hates him more than I do....eesh! |
I think you need to diversify your commentary consumption. The vitriol from most establishment liberals is pretty withering. Just read what they're saying about the new stimulus "infrastructure" bill he's peddling - it's full of all the pro-business stuff Republicans have been asking for, and the Left is calling him on it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...hite_house.html
| quote: |
The pro-business White House
I've spent a fair portion of the day going through President Obama's new proposals to help the sagging economy. There's the one to give businesses billions of dollars in tax breaks for research and development. There's the one to give businesses billions of dollars in tax breaks for equipment investment. There's the one to give small businesses a $30 billion lending fund, and also reverse a provision of the health-care reform bill that would've forced them to spend a lot of time on 1099 tax compliance. There's the one to spend $50 billion paying private companies to rebuild our infrastructure.
I got at this in Wonkbook today, but it's worth thinking harder about the idea -- propagated by many on the right and some in the business community -- that this president is somehow anti-business. The health-care reform bill bends over backward to preserve each and every private industry currently overcharging us for our care. The Obama campaign publicly supported the bank bailout and then repelled the populist measures to really hammer banker pay when they got into office. The financial reform bill didn't break up the banks, set leverage requirements in statute or do any of a number of other things that would've really hurt the financial industry. The auto bailout was designed to preserve the existence of America's auto industry, and even the Economist has admitted that the Obama administration did everything in its power to "restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible." The various stimulus measures have been designed to directly support businesses or indirectly support the people who those businesses rely on.
The point isn't that all of these policies were good. Some of them weren't. The point is that the constant accusation that this White House is somehow anti-business, or deaf to the corporate community's concerns, is a fiction of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. There's a good argument to be made, I think, that this White House is too focused on business, but it's annoying to have to frame it as a boldly counterintuitive point, rather than as an obvious conclusion based on their raft of policy initiatives meant to save, help or otherwise improve the position of corporate America. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
No, he's just woefully unqualified to manage, let alone lead. And he panders to the worst of the left. |
Really? And that's because he isn't pandering to failed right wing policies? Like I said, expecting full employment within such a short time of the second biggest financial crisis in 100 years, is delusional no matter if the president is Republican, Democrat, or Fascist. |
|
|
| The17sss |
Those who live solely in the world of academia will never understand. How can you fall for such a silly shell game like that? $400-$800 checks "for 95% working families" counts as being a tax cutting fiscal hawk? What does that come out to... about $50/month? I don't even know a single person who has received such a benefit. And giving checks to the 46% who don't pay income taxes is welfare, not a tax break. Meanwhile, about 75-100 million Americans with a 401K and/or money in the stock market are about to see the capital gains tax more than double- therefore will be hit with new taxes. That's just 1 example.
What most of you academics also don't understand is this: about 85% of small businesses are registered as "Sub Chapter S Corps".... I am one of them. That could be 1 employee or up to 500. (Full disclosure, I have been on the academic side as well). When it comes time to do yearly taxes, whatever money is in the bank gets filed on owners' personal tax returns; I say again- we have to file our business reportings on our personal income tax return. For a business to show $250,000 in profit sitting in the bank (that seems to be the magical number that Obama classifies as being rich)... that is nothing. Even with just a few employees on marginal salaries, you need a few months of payroll + overhead + operating costs sitting there just to break even. So all those shop owners, store owners, small product or service company owners... millions of people!... who are barely able to make payroll can show $250,000 in corporate assets or profit, and get taxed on their personal returns as though they are part of "the rich." These are the little details that career politicians and academics will never understand, and it shows right now- we have the most inexperienced (business wise) administration in history right now... nobody with private sector experience. Is that not important? Is it really any surprise that the economy is in tatters? If the objective were truly to grow business, none of the current policies would be enacted. There is no substitute for real world experience.
Let's not gloss over the real problem. It's simply unbelievable that after two years of world record deficits from unchecked spending, Obama has not proposed a single idea that would reduce the size/scope of our massively expanding government.
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Really? And that's because he isn't pandering to failed right wing policies? |
No, it's because he has people with zero real world business experience dictating how the economy should be run. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I think you need to diversify your commentary consumption. The vitriol from most establishment liberals is pretty withering. Just read what they're saying about the new stimulus "infrastructure" bill he's peddling - it's full of all the pro-business stuff Republicans have been asking for, and the Left is calling him on it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...hite_house.html |
Ezra Klein... seriously?
That new $50 billion "stimulus" he's pedaling isn't at all pro-business. It would support labor unions (for temporary jobs no less)! Jesus, he was pitching that speech in front of a labor union. We'd have to borrow that money, which would raise the deficit and interest payments even higher. Why not use unspent money from the first $846 billion "stimulus" (the real reason GOP opposes it)? And wasn't that one supposed to be the answer to "infrastructure", chalk full of jobs for roads/highways/bridges? What is this nonsense!? Like people are sitting around waiting to erect a new business, and just need some roads build into the landscape to access the space?
:stongue: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Those who live solely in the world of academia will never understand. |
Because it follows according to your logic that no one in the academia world have ever lived in the business, "real" world?
| quote: | | How can you fall for such a silly shell game like that? |
Umm, because every nonpartisan group that has examined the data agrees that a healthy amount of revenue would be gained on the top 2% if they actually paid a little more on taxes?
| quote: | | $400-$800 checks "for 95% working families" counts as being a tax cutting fiscal hawk? What does that come out to... about $50/month? I don't even know a single person who has received such a benefit. |
I seem to remember another stimulus plan given by a previous administration, touting such things and getting a whopping $300 check in the mail. Agreed that it didn't help much, but something was better than nothing, even back then. What's important this time around is to offset that with an increase in revenue brought in by tax returns moving back to previous levels (to which was the original point of Republicans touting a 10-yr tax break to expire) on the top 2% of individuals, which history has demonstrated time and again do not help boost the economy near as much as the actual middle class.
| quote: | | And giving checks to the 46% who don't pay income taxes is welfare, not a tax break. |
Kinda like those billions of dollars Bush and the Republicans gave to the oil industries and other businesses, especially considering how ridiculous so many of those top tier businesses seemingly skip out on their taxes as it is:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/...odgers-cost-you
| quote: | | Meanwhile, about 75-100 million Americans with a 401K and/or money in the stock market are about to see the capital gains tax more than double- therefore will be hit with new taxes. That's just 1 example. |
Not sure how the your numbers break down, but Obama does favor capping capital gains at 20%, which would be a 5% increase. But also keep in mind whom exactly this plan to let the tax cuts expire (a proposal to let expire by those Republicans who created the cuts in the first place, mind you) would truly effect:
| quote: | President Barack Obama’s plan to let Bush-era tax cuts for the highest-income Americans expire would have limited effect on 76 percent of those taxpayers, a study says.
Under the Democrats’ plan to end a tax break for those earning more than $200,000 per individual or $250,000 per couple, the 3.8 million filers who fall in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range would pay $2 billion more in 2011 taxes, or an average of $532, according to a July 30 letter from the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
The study conducted for the House Ways and Means Committee shows that those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 would account for 5 percent of the planned $38 billion tax increase. The biggest burden would fall on the 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million and the 315,000 who earn more than $1 million; the first group would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000, and the second group would owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average, the analysis said.
For those who earn less than $500,000, the tax increase is “relatively low,” said Roberton Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute in Washington who studied the report. “It’s less than 1 percent.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ocrat-plan.html |
Cry me a ing river.
| quote: | | What most of you academics also don't understand is this: about 85% of small businesses are registered as "Sub Chapter S Corps".... I am one of them. That could be 1 employee or up to 500. (Full disclosure, I have been on the academic side as well). When it comes time to do yearly taxes, whatever money is in the bank gets filed on owners' personal tax returns; I say again- we have to file our business reportings on our personal income tax return. For a business to show $250,000 in profit sitting in the bank (that seems to be the magical number that Obama classifies as being rich)... that is nothing. Even with just a few employees on marginal salaries, you need a few months of payroll + overhead + operating costs sitting there just to break even. So all those shop owners, store owners, small product or service company owners... millions of people!... who are barely able to make payroll can show $250,000 in corporate assets or profit, and get taxed on their personal returns as though they are part of "the rich." These are the little details that career politicians and academics will never understand, and it shows right now- we have the most inexperienced (business wise) administration in history right now... nobody with private sector experience. Is that not important? Is it really any surprise that the economy is in tatters? If the objective were truly to grow business, none of the current policies would be enacted. There is no substitute for real world experience. |
Again, not exactly sure where you get your numbers. One of the reasons why S-corporations like yours may be getting taxed just as equally is because of the broader definition of the term "small business" and how larger corporations are taking advantage of that:
| quote: | Those who claim that raising the top rates would seriously harm small businesses also tend to rely on an extremely broad definition of “small business.” Because the IRS does not publish specific, satisfactory data on the taxes that small businesses pay, analysts are left to examine various sources of business income that individuals receive. Some analysts define any taxpayer who shows any business income on a tax return — including passive income that very wealthy investors secure — as a small business. Defining small businesses in this manner greatly overstates the actual number of small businesses, particularly among households with very high incomes.[6]
For example, most Americans would not describe the nation’s wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the “Top 400” individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income — which means that they qualify as “small business owners” under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) — an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. [7] In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of “small business” used in tax debates:
* partners in very large corporate law firms,
* partners in lucrative medical practices, and
* Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.
The commonly used definition of “small business” also includes many wealthy executives of the nation’s largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered “small business owners” if they rent out their vacation homes.[8]
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3251 |
Furthermore:
| quote: | Only 34 percent of those making between $200-500,000 report making income from partnerships or S corporation, while 60.4 percent of those between $500,000 and $1 million, 78.4 percent of those making between $2-5 million, and 89.2 percent of those making over $10 million do. Given that the vast majority of high income filers–79.4 percent– make between $200-500,000, this suggests that the filers reporting small business income who would be affected by letting the tax cuts expire come disproportionately from the ranks of the super-rich.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...uch_do_the.html |
The average income of those being effected by letting these taxes expire is $800,000:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg814.htm
Again, cry me a ing river.
| quote: | | Let's not gloss over the real problem. |
No, let's create one that in all reality doesn't truly exist.....
| quote: | | It's simply unbelievable that after two years of world record deficits from unchecked spending, Obama has not proposed a single idea that would reduce the size/scope of our massively expanding government. |
What's more unbelievable is your ineptitude to understanding why he had to initially spend money to attempt getting us out of this hole created by conservative policies in the first place, let alone all those voices such as yours crying out in misery as Bush ran up the deficits with endless wars that didn't even go on his Annual budget plans and tax cuts that ran us in the red as far as our eyes can see.
| quote: | | No, it's because he has people with zero real world business experience dictating how the economy should be run. |
Yeah, having a conservative economist running our country would be a real ing hoot instead. I'll be sure to vote for the Koch brothers next time either one runs for POTUS......:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
