Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Surprise, surprise, surprise


MojoMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples).

 

The tax measure would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, when the White House assumes the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%, up from the current 33% and 35% as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts.

 

Obama's proposal would cap itemized deductions at 28%. That would mean for every $100 in deductions the rich claim in 2013, they would be able to reduce their tax bill by only $28. That would be less than the $36 or $39.60 they would get if they are in the top two tax brackets.

 

Relative to other federal tax filers, high-income households benefit disproportionately from itemized deductions -- including those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

 

Obama's plan is similar to one he offered in each of his three budgets. But the proposal has gone nowhere in Congress.

 

The president put forth other repeat proposals on Monday to pay for the stimulus package.

 

So-called carried interest -- a portion of the money paid to managers of hedge funds and other investments partnerships -- would be taxed as ordinary income under Obama. Translation: It would be subject to rates as high as 39.6%, up from the current preferential rate of 15%. The White House estimates this change could raise $18 billion over 10 years.

 

Obama also wants to repeal various oil subsidies for an estimated savings of $40 billion. And he would impose a less-generous depreciation rule for the purchase of corporate jets. That measure would raise an estimated $3 billion.

 

Oh no! The "already supposed to have expired" tax cuts will finally expire? It must be the end of the world!

 

Is there really any unreasonable things being suggested :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then who does create jobs? Real, private sector jobs that the economy requires to move?

 

DEMAND

 

Supply side economics is a failed ideology. Big business is sitting on piles of cash. Give them more tax breaks and they'll continue to do the same. Hiring won't take place until demand goes up. Demand won't go up until the middle and lower classes start spending more money. And they can't do that without more income. They are not sitting on piles of cash. Catch 22 or what? Seems to me you do exactly what O is advocating, get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it, causing business to ramp up production to meet increased demand, and hire more people. Of course they'll try their best to squeeze more efficiency out of existing labor resources first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEMAND

 

Supply side economics is a failed ideology. Big business is sitting on piles of cash. Give them more tax breaks and they'll continue to do the same. Hiring won't take place until demand goes up. Demand won't go up until the middle and lower classes start spending more money. And they can't do that without more income. They are not sitting on piles of cash. Catch 22 or what? Seems to me you do exactly what O is advocating, get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it, causing business to ramp up production to meet increased demand, and hire more people. Of course they'll try their best to squeeze more efficiency out of existing labor resources first.

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, i've come around to the line of reasoning that uncertainty is killing growth as well. The admin and congress need to pass a long term budget deal that gives everyone certainty in the business environment for the next ten years to start with.

 

No kidding. People don't seem to realize the amount of uncertainty Obama has introduced into the economy. This uncertainty is keeping people from making purchases, which affects demand, as well as causing business owners to balk at expanding their businesses even if there is enough demand to justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEMAND

 

Supply side economics is a failed ideology. Big business is sitting on piles of cash. Give them more tax breaks and they'll continue to do the same. Hiring won't take place until demand goes up. Demand won't go up until the middle and lower classes start spending more money. And they can't do that without more income. They are not sitting on piles of cash. Catch 22 or what? Seems to me you do exactly what O is advocating, get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it, causing business to ramp up production to meet increased demand, and hire more people. Of course they'll try their best to squeeze more efficiency out of existing labor resources first.

 

But they don't have the income right now because businesses won't expand due to the uncertainty obamessiah is causing. A job is created when an entrepreneur takes a risk. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding. People don't seem to realize the amount of uncertainty Obama has introduced into the economy. This uncertainty is keeping people from making purchases, which affects demand, as well as causing business owners to balk at expanding their businesses even if there is enough demand to justify it.

 

 

Please define what "uncertainty Obama has introduced into the economy". The only I can remotely think of is the health care legislation, and that may actually cause business expenses to DROP if their employees go to the health care pools for insurance.

 

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire after 10 years, so that shouldnt have been a suprise to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please define what "uncertainty Obama has introduced into the economy". The only I can remotely think of is the health care legislation, and that may actually cause business expenses to DROP if their employees go to the health care pools for insurance.

 

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire after 10 years, so that shouldnt have been a suprise to anyone.

 

The health care bill, the stimulus, the second stimulus, QE3,458,022,001, extension of unemployment, just to name a few that have actually gone into affect, as all have unknown costs associated with them, many of which will be paid for primarily buy business owners. Then you have to add in the crap that he has proposed as well, that people were scared to death he had the political capital to pass, such as Cap and Trade/Tax. As I've said all along, the best thing the government could have done was just get out of the damned way and commit to not passing any new legislation affecting business (including but not limited to taxes) until unemployment was at a more tolerable level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The health care bill, the stimulus, the second stimulus, QE3,458,022,001, extension of unemployment, just to name a few that have actually gone into affect, as all have unknown costs associated with them, many of which will be paid for primarily buy business owners. Then you have to add in the crap that he has proposed as well, that people were scared to death he had the political capital to pass, such as Cap and Trade/Tax. As I've said all along, the best thing the government could have done was just get out of the damned way and commit to not passing any new legislation affecting business (including but not limited to taxes) until unemployment was at a more tolerable level.

 

Perch . . . you DO understand that if people have no money . . then they cant spend it on things that companies make . . so they dont hire people . . etc, etc.

 

For example, lets say that you opened a lazer tag/ bowling franchise. But all the people near by where you build said business ( lets say there is 10,000 people), have no money to spend on lazer tag or bowling except for the upper upper income earners (lets say there are 100). Would you want to just cater toward the 100, or would you want the 10,000 to have enough money to spend at your business? Cause the 100 wont be there enough times to overcome the loss of 9,900 other customers.

 

And for the love of God . . cap and trade is sooooo over with . . . :tup:

 

The "uncertainty" over Obama is one of the dumbest things I have heard of in light of his actual actions. He has rolled over for EVERYTHING the right has wanted in the last year. Absolutely everything. So actually, there shouldnt be ANY uncertainty from "obamaessiah" because it will be whatever the Republicans want in the end anyways. So if the right is really running the show and getting everything they want, then who/what is creating all of all this "uncertainty"? :wacko:

 

 

AT the end of the day there will always be "uncertainty" becasue NOTHING is for sure or guaranteed. Weakest excuse ever is that "the future is uncertain and I am not guaranteed a massive profit every year! I am askeeered!"

Edited by bpwallace49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The health care bill, the stimulus, the second stimulus, QE3,458,022,001, extension of unemployment, just to name a few that have actually gone into affect, as all have unknown costs associated with them, many of which will be paid for primarily buy business owners. Then you have to add in the crap that he has proposed as well, that people were scared to death he had the political capital to pass, such as Cap and Trade/Tax. As I've said all along, the best thing the government could have done was just get out of the damned way and commit to not passing any new legislation affecting business (including but not limited to taxes) until unemployment was at a more tolerable level.

 

You're not even mentioning all of the regulations that were estimated to add all the costs to business. What's he gonna do if he gets a second term and then doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected? You're seeing the Wesley Mouches of the world take over here. Next thing he'll try is telling businesses they HAVE to add X number of jobs or be penalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not even mentioning all of the regulations that were estimated to add all the costs to business. What's he gonna do if he gets a second term and then doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected? You're seeing the Wesley Mouches of the world take over here. Next thing he'll try is telling businesses they HAVE to add X number of jobs or be penalized.

 

Didnt he just eliminate or reduce hundreds and hundreds of regulations? :wacko: But dont let that fact get in your way . . please carry on . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEMAND

 

Supply side economics is a failed ideology. Big business is sitting on piles of cash. Give them more tax breaks and they'll continue to do the same. Hiring won't take place until demand goes up. Demand won't go up until the middle and lower classes start spending more money. And they can't do that without more income. They are not sitting on piles of cash. Catch 22 or what? Seems to me you do exactly what O is advocating, get more money into the hands of consumers who will spend it, causing business to ramp up production to meet increased demand, and hire more people. Of course they'll try their best to squeeze more efficiency out of existing labor resources first.

 

I can tell you from at least my perspective (where I work) that this is not true. Even during the worst of the recession, we were hiring and we continue to do so now. We were directed by the company to track anything over 40 hours per week so they could see where additional bodies were needed (and this was back in 2007). We did and they held true to their word. Granted, there have been layoffs but those were directed towards the failing side of services we offer and the reduction was needed. However, we just finished an effort to hire on X amount of new college graduates and X amount of non-degree holding individuals to train them up and keep them as long term employees (meaning more than 3 years).

 

From the taxing the rich portion, this is the stupidest idea out there. Even if you taxed 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income you would still only have enough money to run the federal government for less than a month. How does this make sense?

 

Economic growth is the only way out of this cycle. We need to make things here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you from at least my perspective (where I work) that this is not true. Even during the worst of the recession, we were hiring and we continue to do so now. We were directed by the company to track anything over 40 hours per week so they could see where additional bodies were needed (and this was back in 2007). We did and they held true to their word. Granted, there have been layoffs but those were directed towards the failing side of services we offer and the reduction was needed. However, we just finished an effort to hire on X amount of new college graduates and X amount of non-degree holding individuals oto train them up and keep them as long term employees (meaning more than 3 years).

 

From the taxing the rich portion, this is the stupidest idea out there. Even ifi you taxed 100% of the wealthiest people in the country's income you would still only have enough money to run the federal government for less than a month. How does this make sense?

 

Economic growth is the only way out of this cycle. We need to make things here again.

 

 

Do you still work for Verizon? If so, probably not very representative of the economy as a whole becase the mobile phone market, read smart phone tech, is one of a few areas that has actually exploded in the last few years. I would say any growth you've had is absolutely related to demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt he just eliminate or reduce hundreds and hundreds of regulations? :wacko: But dont let that fact get in your way . . please carry on . . .

 

From here:

 

Yes .. you read that headline correctly. I’m about to say something positive about Barack Obummer.

 

Last week, Barack Obama put a stop to pending EPA smog regulations. The regulations were supposed to impose further controls on air-quality standards, and it would have added anywhere from $19 billion to $90 billion to the cost of doing business.

 

There were also concerns that at least nine power generating plants in our country would be completely unable to meet the new standards and would have to shut down. This would have put a strain on power generation that might have cause brownouts and shortages. Not exactly good for business expansion in the affected areas.

 

The environmentalists are screaming bloody murder. To be expected. Remember, for the bulk of these people their main concern is not so much clean air as it is slowing down our capitalist free-enterprise marketplace.

 

And you wonder why businesses are concerned … when they are awaiting billions of dollars in new regulations like this one, along with impending tax increases on high achievers and new ObamaCare regulations set to take effect as of 2014? So kudos to Barack Obama for stepping in to stop the EPA from implementing this costly regulation. Now I would like him to explain the other 340 new regulations that his administration has proposed since the beginning of this year, which are estimated to cost at least $65 billion. But hey .. gotta start somewhere, right?

 

Don't worry though, I won't hold my breath awaiting the deserved apology... :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, lets say that you opened a lazer tag/ bowling franchise.

 

Said venture requires too many employees and would thus be subject to Obamacare, so said venture died on the vine. Looking at something else now, that has fewer employees, and hopefully less exposure. Hopefully will know something in the next month. Still making the decision is tough, particularly when we have no idea what rate I'll be taxed at. Am I better off just investing and taking lower capital gains taxes, or starting or buying a business and making more money, but having more risk, regulation and taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic growth is the only way out of this cycle. We need to make things here again.

Since 2000, 2.9 million jobs have been eliminated here and 2.4 million created overseas. Perhaps we could encourage our "job creators" to create jobs if we all agree to work for the wage of an Indian peasant.

 

Job creators, my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 2000, 2.9 million jobs have been eliminated here and 2.4 million created overseas. Perhaps we could encourage our "job creators" to create jobs if we all agree to work for the wage of an Indian peasant.

 

Job creators, my ass.

 

Or if we get rid of a ton of needless (not all) regulation, bust unions, and streamline the tax code and reduce the expense the government places on businesses to make America a more competitive atmosphere for manufacturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said venture requires too many employees and would thus be subject to Obamacare, so said venture died on the vine. Looking at something else now, that has fewer employees, and hopefully less exposure. Hopefully will know something in the next month. Still making the decision is tough, particularly when we have no idea what rate I'll be taxed at. Am I better off just investing and taking lower capital gains taxes, or starting or buying a business and making more money, but having more risk, regulation and taxes?

 

 

Seriously, that sucks about the franchise. :wacko:

 

But wouldnt you . . . as a small business owner . . . LIKE the fact that the jobs bill includes significant tax cuts for small businesses? isnt that a positive that renoves "uncertainty"? Or because the Republicans may not pass the bill that would support and aid small businesses that has you worried? I too . . am worried about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information