Damn them!

Today the GOP voted against tax relief for working families of America! REMEMBER DECEMBER in 2012!!!!

12/4/2010 4:55:05 PM

Ahhh, the delicious smell of class warfare.

12/4/2010 5:20:34 PM

And the Democrats, too, voted against tax relief for working families of America!
REMEMBER DECEMBER in 2012!!!!

12/4/2010 6:20:08 PM

^millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more...the top 3%...maybe they will not be able to buy that island for another year.....

12/4/2010 6:32:26 PM

if they conspire to let all the Bush tax cuts expire it will work wonders on the deficit

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : srsly

12/4/2010 6:32:31 PM

yeah, 700 billion in extra revenue...

12/4/2010 6:33:51 PM

you might wanna re-think that. it's a lot more than 700b

12/4/2010 6:36:43 PM

Quote :

"^millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more...the top 3%...maybe they will not be able to buy that island for another year...."

Or hire new workers.

Quote :

"if they conspire to let all the Bush tax cuts expire it will work wonders on the deficit"

Also on the economy

And the last time I checked, the Democrats were still in control in 1) the House of Representatives, 2) the Senate and, 3) the White House.

12/4/2010 9:34:25 PM

I notice the media has unanimously decided to say that the extending tax cuts debate is between all or none for the wealthiest, rather than a debate over how much tax cuts to extend to them (since I don't think anyone is actually proposing no tax cuts extended for the wealthy).

12/4/2010 9:56:48 PM

Quote :

"kdogg(c): And the last time I checked, the Democrats were still in control in 1) the House of Representatives, 2) the Senate and, 3) the White House."

12/4/2010 11:42:22 PM

Quote :

" Or hire new workers. "

I love how people say this like they are doing people a favor.

"Oh man we'd have so much more money if it wasn't for all those damn employees! "

12/5/2010 12:30:19 AM

We all can afford to pay more. The point is, we don't want to. In any sane world, the government could easily make do with what it gets.

12/5/2010 12:42:09 AM

Perhaps I've been ignorant about the mechanic of this for awhile, so maybe someone can explain it properly.

Regarding how small businesses are taxed, is income (at least as far as an s-corp is concerned) pretty much everything that is left over after paying into the business? Essentially, all the profit?

12/5/2010 8:07:56 AM

Quote :

"^millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more..."

1. They already do
2. 250k isnt a millionare or billionare. Although CNN.com had a piece that said republicans are holding on for tax cuts for the SUPER WEALTHY. hahah, SUPER.

If you are going to keep the rate the same for one, do it for everyone. They already pay a higher percentage as is. Its amazing to me how people want equality in so many areas and inequality when it benefits them more.

If the govt would come up with a plan to drastically cut spending first, letting these bush tax cuts expire on everyone would be ideal.

Also of interest, for years we heard these tax cuts only went to the rich. Now extending the tax cuts to the wealthy will "cost", which I hate that term bc it validates the govt owns your income before you do, the govt 700B. However, extending the tax cuts to those making under 250k will "cost" 3 Trillion.

12/5/2010 9:42:08 AM

Quote :

"extending the tax cuts to those making under 250k will "cost" 3 Trillion"

Link?

12/5/2010 11:06:22 AM

Hope this helps

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

"Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners."

12/5/2010 2:14:11 PM

you mean democrats are conveniently leaving out the fact that the tax-cuts for every one else amount to more money than the "tax cuts for the wealthy" alone? they would NEVER do such a thing...

12/5/2010 5:02:02 PM

Quote :

"Regarding how small businesses are taxed, is income (at least as far as an s-corp is concerned) pretty much everything that is left over after paying into the business? Essentially, all the profit?"

I believe so. I know small businesses are allowed to write their expenses off on their taxes. This includes pay for employees, I believe medical benefits, cost of maintaining and expanding the business (new machinery), I think training, ect. There's a lot that counts as business expenses.

Hell, they can even write off their car as a business expense if they buy one. A lot of small business owners will buy a personal car, but classify it as a business expense.

12/5/2010 5:31:37 PM

^^^

That...is eye opening. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

12/5/2010 9:31:54 PM

Quote :

"250k isnt a millionare or billionare. Although CNN.com had a piece that said republicans are holding on for tax cuts for the SUPER WEALTHY. hahah, SUPER."

They voted on an extension up to 1 million. Rejected. Put that in your silver pipe and smoke it.

Quote :

"Or hire new workers."

Aw jeez, Ma. Looks like we're only going to rake in $650,000 this year instead of $670,000. Might as well close down the factory...

Cry me a fucking river.

12/5/2010 9:41:13 PM

Quote :

"2. 250k isnt a millionare or billionare. Although CNN.com had a piece that said republicans are holding on for tax cuts for the SUPER WEALTHY. hahah, SUPER."

250k in profit is pretty damn wealthy. Don't get thrown off by Fox News pundits who make it sound like they're taxing small businesses who bring in 250k worth of revenue. It's 250k after re-investing into the company, and purchasing new equipment, paying workers (bonuses, or salary increases), and hell, it's 250K after the owner purchases a new BMW (business expense).

Don't buy into this, "OMFG, WE'RE KILLING SMALL BUSINESS BY RAISING TAXES" bullshit.

12/5/2010 10:57:14 PM

Liberals are so sick in the head.

Keep living in that basement, hope its heated this winter.

12/5/2010 11:43:08 PM

^ What the fuck does that even mean?

12/6/2010 12:12:36 AM

look dude we get it, you want the american economy to flounder. Well. youve got it. its getting worse by the day.

Some of us want to prosper and thats why we voted for people to stand up against the socialist movement.

Today was a step towards preserving the nation, go smoke another joint on your mom's couch.

12/6/2010 1:33:01 AM

^
I hope you wake up one day.

12/6/2010 1:47:54 AM

Quote :

"Aw jeez, Ma. Looks like we're only going to rake in $650,000 this year instead of $670,000. Might as well close down the factory..."

This is a big country and there is always some factory somewhere on the verge of closing down. No telling what would be the last straw that convinced the owners it was no longer worth the effort.

12/6/2010 2:01:41 AM

Yeah, how did they ever survive during those dreadful 90's tax rates?

12/6/2010 6:11:24 AM

Like all stable systems, the system of free enterprise has several feedback mechanisms to keep it stable. If something happens to dramatically harm profitability, the least profitable firms will begin to close. As they close, the push of competition lessens and profits of the remaining firms begin to rise. Once profitability has risen enough, firms stop closing down. This is sometimes a slow process and can be painful for the workers temporarily displaced.

12/6/2010 9:12:33 AM

Do you not understand the 90s are over? All of our malinvestment in setting up all this excess capacity has wired the rest of the world into a global marketplace. We are no longer competitive in many indutries and we will continue to lose those jobs at an alarming rate.

When the credit dries up lights out.

12/6/2010 9:57:27 AM

Quote :

"250k in profit is pretty damn wealthy."

Thats not how taxes work. Simply look at your paycheck.

12/6/2010 11:37:37 AM

Yeah, you have to wonder when we'll wake up as a country and try to figure out why the productive jobs are leaving the country. It's really not a fucking mystery. Wage controls and high taxes are like a cancer to any economy. It's like someone took the plot of "Atlas Shrugged" and put it to real life.

12/6/2010 11:40:41 AM

Fuck a deficit - we gonna spend! All bush tax cuts extended as well as unemployment benefits.

As usual, no one actually gives a fucking shit about deficits. It's only useful for election-winning rhetoric.

12/6/2010 11:49:42 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, you have to wonder when we'll wake up as a country and try to figure out why the productive jobs are leaving the country. It's really not a fucking mystery. Wage controls and high taxes are like a cancer to any economy. It's like someone took the plot of "Atlas Shrugged" and put it to real life."

Yeah all the jobs are going to more conservative places, like Communist China!

12/6/2010 11:52:23 AM

A couple things. This isn't about how "liberal" or "conservative" a country is. It's about having a free market, which liberals supported at one point in time. Secondly, I wouldn't call China communist. It's a command economy, but they too have a bubble economy right now.

Capital is flowing to emerging markets. Places like Singapore are the perfect place to start and maintain a business. They have low taxes, and the government understands how not to get in the way of business. Capital tends to take the path of least resistance. We will need sweeping free market changes to see robust job growth in this country again. I suspect that the oligarchy will loot most of the wealth before we get to that point.

12/6/2010 1:27:16 PM

Quote :

"Yeah all the jobs are going to more conservative places, like Communist China! "

Massive amounts of cheap labor for the win.

So we should just make our labor more expensive and speed things up. haha

12/6/2010 1:30:14 PM

Quote :

"This is a big country and there is always some factory somewhere on the verge of closing down. No telling what would be the last straw that convinced the owners it was no longer worth the effort."

A factory on the verge of closing down where the owner is making a million year in profit on said factory? Give me a break.

Is Ebeneezer Scrooge the protagonist in all of your hypothetical scenarios?

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : bah, humbug]

12/6/2010 1:51:43 PM

^ It seems to be your opinion that owners of factories are there to serve you until bankruptcy prevents them. This is not the case. Lots of profitable businesses close every year, sometimes for no other reason than the owner would rather be playing golf.

I do not present this as that strong an argument. It is not the end of the world. If it done for a good cause, prices will adjust, remaining businesses will earn even higher profits, and workers will find new jobs. But what we are debating is not a good cause. The Government collects plenty of money to do the things it needs to do, a little more isn't going to help.

12/6/2010 3:27:03 PM

A million dollars is a lot of money to you or me, but to a factory that employs a couple hundred people?

What if it took 20 million in operating expenses to make the million profit? That would mean the profit is 4.7%. That is not too terribly shabby. But if the operating expenses were $100 million, the profit would be less than 1%, and the owners would have better luck on the stock market. Just because they made a cool million, doesn't mean they are doing well.

12/6/2010 6:08:14 PM

I see. The most logical thing to do then is to abolish taxes on the rich.

12/6/2010 6:42:01 PM

Can you feel that? Yeah... it's that trickle down all over your face. Take it like a good pleb.

12/6/2010 6:54:23 PM

Quote :

"President Barack Obama on Monday announced a deal with Republican leaders that would extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years and unemployment benefits for 13 months while also lowering the payroll tax by two percentage points for a year."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/06/obama.taxes.debates/index.html?hpt=C1


Damn, dude is looking like a zombie.

In other news, looks like we couldn't increase the deficit anymore if we tried.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 7:15 PM. Reason : anymore]

12/6/2010 7:12:48 PM

Quote :

"This is a big country and there is always some factory somewhere on the verge of closing down. No telling what would be the last straw that convinced the owners it was no longer worth the effort."

But why would an increased tax rate affect a firm that doesn't have any profit to tax as it is?

12/6/2010 8:27:41 PM

^ Because to most Americans, revenue and profit are one in the same.

12/6/2010 8:33:09 PM

Quote :

"I see. The most logical thing to do then is to abolish taxes on the rich."

I wish we could, but Obama needs armies to occupy Iraq and bailouts for the politically connected. While it would be ideal if government could be financed without taxing anyone, I don't think it could ever happen. I always advocate a novel idea: why not tax only the rich? The rest of us don't collectively pay very much, slash our tax rates to zero and slash government spending to match.

Quote :

"But why would an increased tax rate affect a firm that doesn't have any profit to tax as it is?"

One important point: a firm that is not believed to have any profit to tax (either now or in the future) will not exist for very long. Such a firm will be killed and liquidated to liberate the capital invested for something else that will return a profit. To be on the verge of closing down a firm must be profitable in some way, or it would not be on the verge of closing, it would have already closed.

[Edited on December 6, 2010 at 11:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/6/2010 11:50:01 PM

Republicans: shit sucking lying assholes who will stop it nothing to take this country down with them if they don't have the power they crave.


Democrats: absolute worthless pussies who will lie down and curl up on the ground like little girls when threatened with losing the power that they crave.


FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS
FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS

YOU PLAYED POLITICS AND HELPED NOTHING BUT YOUR STUPID ASS CAREERS BUT AMERICA LOST!

ALL OF YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELVES

12/7/2010 12:21:17 AM

Quote :

"One important point: a firm that is not believed to have any profit to tax (either now or in the future) will not exist for very long"

So we're in agreement, taxes don't matter to these companies that aren't profitable anyway?

12/7/2010 6:31:45 AM

It seems we are in agreement. Taxes don't matter to things that do not exist. Taxes don't matter to dragons and unicorns either. However, to firms that do exist, namely firms that are believed by their owners to be profitable either now or in the future, taxes damn sure would matter.

12/7/2010 9:23:00 AM

I think most logical people here agree that we have a gap in revenue/expenses to close in this country and that "rich" people should not be exempt from paying their fair share.

all of the rabble bullshit aside, I also think most logical people would agree this can be done by doing two things: 1) cutting costs 2) raising revenue. Closing the gap will not and cannot happen only by doing one of these things.

what I am against is the singling out of a class of people - rich, middle class, poor, wealthy, investors, cash hoarders, etc...and demanding that that class of people is somehow more responsible morally to take care of the issue or is so weak/resourceless that they cannot help at all. that is WRONG. we are all equally responsible because we have all created the current problem...we we all should be treated as such.

why not a 4 year temporary tax surcharge, ON ALL AMERICANS, of 2% or something similar as a way to close the gap (combined of course with cutting of spending)? everyone pony up some cash to solve the problem.

the demonizing of people, simply because they have money, is fucking ridiculous. we are all equal partners in this shit storm.

12/7/2010 9:41:36 AM

Quote :

"One important point: a firm that is not believed to have any profit to tax (either now or in the future) will not exist for very long."

Not unless you're [user]mdozer73[/quote], who thinks a 4.7% return on your investment is poor.

12/7/2010 9:58:16 AM

^Actually, he thinks someone with access to $100 million in capital is poor.

12/7/2010 10:00:08 AM