Obama rules out any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich
-
HitsRus
I have to question the CBO's assertion(see boatshoes link) that the 'upper 2%' is going to save.....not going to spend the "tax cut extension" (let's call it what it really is.). As a HENRY owning a business that employs 8 people besides my wife and I, my personal savings goals are based on an economic plan set by my financial advisor and me. My savings amount is fixed in stone....and that dollar amount allocated for saving/investment is not going to change. What will change if the tax cuts are not extended is the money that I have left for discretionary spending. If I get hammered for an additional $10-12 K that means maybe I don't buy a car, do some remodeling, take a shorter vacation etc. I can't imagine that most people in my financial strata don't have similar strategies. Further, I could get rid of one employee if I really had to....keeping them is a convienience, not a necessity, but as long as I'm meeting my personal financial benchmarks, it's not a problem. I'm not an SOB...I don't want to lay anyone off, I'm a small business and I know my employees personally. But if I get squeezed...someone is going to lose a job.
Personally, I think this administration has no clue...further it is getting advice from government bureaucrats that have no clue.
What is needed is not changes in the personal tax rates, but in tax policy that drives the multi-nationals offshore. -
believer
Like I've said a dozen times before, biting the hand that feeds us is NOT the way to balance the books. Increasing taxes on those who control the purse strings will only hurt those in dire need of employment. But then again that's what some folks in Big Government want isn't it? Yet another person dependent upon the Feds for sustenance.HitsRus;483327 wrote:What will change if the tax cuts are not extended is the money that I have left for discretionary spending. If I get hammered for an additional $10-12 K that means maybe I don't buy a car, do some remodeling, take a shorter vacation etc. I can't imagine that most people in my financial strata don't have similar strategies. Further, I could get rid of one employee if I really had to....keeping them is a convienience, not a necessity, but as long as I'm meeting my personal financial benchmarks, it's not a problem. I'm not an SOB...I don't want to lay anyone off, I'm a small business and I know my employees personally. But if I get squeezed...someone is going to lose a job.
If the Feds want to balance their own financial books that's a great idea. I wish they'd first try by trimming fat and waste out of the ever expanding black hole of Big Government spending....then come back to us and ask for a tax increase.
At the very least this business of class warfare as a means of camouflaging outrageous financial irresponsibility by our elected on non-elected Federal officials has got to be put to rest. -
QuakerOatshttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-tax-cut-vote-delayed-until-november-2010-09-23
This particular congress + a lame duck session = VERY dangerous. -
jmogHitsRus;483327 wrote:I have to question the CBO's assertion(see boatshoes link) that the 'upper 2%' is going to save.....not going to spend the "tax cut extension" (let's call it what it really is.). As a HENRY owning a business that employs 8 people besides my wife and I, my personal savings goals are based on an economic plan set by my financial advisor and me. My savings amount is fixed in stone....and that dollar amount allocated for saving/investment is not going to change. What will change if the tax cuts are not extended is the money that I have left for discretionary spending. If I get hammered for an additional $10-12 K that means maybe I don't buy a car, do some remodeling, take a shorter vacation etc. I can't imagine that most people in my financial strata don't have similar strategies. Further, I could get rid of one employee if I really had to....keeping them is a convienience, not a necessity, but as long as I'm meeting my personal financial benchmarks, it's not a problem. I'm not an SOB...I don't want to lay anyone off, I'm a small business and I know my employees personally. But if I get squeezed...someone is going to lose a job.
Personally, I think this administration has no clue...further it is getting advice from government bureaucrats that have no clue.
What is needed is not changes in the personal tax rates, but in tax policy that drives the multi-nationals offshore.
Someone with a small business that speaks the truth, wish 1000s of people like you would send letters to congressmen and BHO. -
BoatShoesjmog;495337 wrote:Someone with a small business that speaks the truth, wish 1000s of people like you would send letters to congressmen and BHO.
Or maybe a small business owner who speaks what sounds good in his head but just isn't in line with the basic accepted economic theory. More affluent Americans will not put money they get from extending the breaks into the economy. Don't believe me? Ask Milton Friedman, the paragon of modern Conservative economic thinking; see his permanent income hypothesis; http://www.nber.org/books/frie57-1. -
CenterBHSFan
BS,
If Hits is speaking about his own personal experience, are you doing the same? Or are you going by what other people say? -
BGFalcons82
BoatShoes;495732 wrote:Or maybe a small business owner who speaks what sounds good in his head but just isn't in line with the basic accepted economic theory. More affluent Americans will not put money they get from extending the breaks into the economy. Don't believe me? Ask Milton Friedman, the paragon of modern Conservative economic thinking; see his permanent income hypothesis; http://www.nber.org/books/frie57-1.
So are you saying that saving and investing aren't good for the economy? I didn't read your link as a specific article did not show up, but I have to believe Friedman believes in such. -
BoatShoesBGFalcons82;495797 wrote:So are you saying that saving and investing aren't good for the economy? I didn't read your link as a specific article did not show up, but I have to believe Friedman believes in such.
"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great Kingdom." ~Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 -
HitsRus
Boatshoes...are you certain that your thinking is not just a view from the ivory tower? I could care less what Friedman says.....it's been 30 years since I've studied "economics"...and frankly I don't give a damn.
What I do know is that 'you pay yourself first'...and that is a common tenet of investing. I'm working for my financial indpendence.
I get a paycheck, money is taken out for taxes, money is taken out for 401(K) and savings...and what I have left goes for discretionary spending. I don't care about Keynes or Friedman. That is what is happening. That is real world. -
QuakerOatsPolitico (9/29, Maggs) reports, "A wide swath of US businesses Tuesday reported that the economy has slowed significantly in the last few months, and they said that the tax stalemate in Washington was a major reason that flagging consumer sentiment is now endangering the recovery. ... Big business members of the Business Roundtable, along with manufacturers, home builders and the oil industry gave gloomy assessments of the recovery and said Congress' decision to postpone action on tax cuts until after the election was weighing heavily on consumer sentiment." Also a survey of consumers by the Conference Board suggested that "consumer confidence fell this month to its lowest level since February." Citing slow economy, business leaders are "arguing for extension of all of the Bush tax cuts...that President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders say should expire." David Huether, the Manufactures' chief economist, "said that growth in manufacturing has been decelerating over the last few months, as consumers rein in their spending."
The socialists in control of congress have cost this nation 10 million jobs in less than 2 years, and they continue along on their destructive path. November cannot arrive soon enough!! -
BGFalcons82
So Congress has decided to adjourn rather than answer a simple question....What will be the tax rates for every American in 94 days?
I have 2 other simple questions: If I pay the exact same amount in federal income taxes on January 1, 2011 that I will pay on December 31, 2010, then how is that a tax cut? Similarly, if I pay MORE in taxes on January 1, 2011 from December 31, 2010, then isn't that a tax increase? -
I Wear PantsIf an item has been on sale for a week is it a price increase when it goes back to the regular price? No.
-
majorspark
Yes it is a price increase. It is simple math. There was a price decrease for a period of time and an increase after that time expires. Don't let politics cloud your vision. It is what it is.I Wear Pants;501143 wrote:If an item has been on sale for a week is it a price increase when it goes back to the regular price? No. -
jmogI Wear Pants;501143 wrote:If an item has been on sale for a week is it a price increase when it goes back to the regular price? No.
Actually yes it is. If my wife was able to buy a box of cereal on sale for $2 one week and the same box is $3 next week, thats an increase, even if it was $3 two weeks ago.
There's a reason my wife is a big coupon clipper and watches the sales. She typically saves over $100 per shopping trip by timing the sales with coupons, etc. But that is a different story...I guess you could say she's like the "rich" who find as many "loop holes" as they can in the tax structure to pay less taxes
. -
QuakerOatsI Wear Pants;501143 wrote:If an item has been on sale for a week is it a price increase when it goes back to the regular price? No.
What if it has been on sale for 8 years? -
jmogI Wear Pants;501143 wrote:If an item has been on sale for a week is it a price increase when it goes back to the regular price? No.
If gas prices jumped back to $4/gallon tomorrow, most of the lefties would be complaining about the increased gas prices and "Big Oil screwing us". However, by your "logic", its not really a gas price hike since a couple years ago we were at $4/gal. -
I Wear Pants
No because gas is always at it's normal price. Never see sales on gasoline.jmog;501417 wrote:If gas prices jumped back to $4/gallon tomorrow, most of the lefties would be complaining about the increased gas prices and "Big Oil screwing us". However, by your "logic", its not really a gas price hike since a couple years ago we were at $4/gal.
It was a semantic argument I was making. Not a real one.
Obviously keeping the taxes as they are aren't really a tax cut and failing to extend them will result in higher taxes which would seem to be a raise in the tax rate. -
QuakerOats90 days to go before the largest tax increase in history, and the socialists in congress do nothing. What a great way to kickstart the economy. No one can plan on anything without knowing the rules and paremeters of the game and thus you will continue to see economic malaise.
Change we can believe in ................ -
ptown_trojans_1
QuakerOats;501485 wrote:90 days to go before the largest tax increase in history, and the socialists in congress do nothing. What a great way to kickstart the economy. No one can plan on anything without knowing the rules and paremeters of the game and thus you will continue to see economic malaise.
Change we can believe in ................
WTF? Taxes will go back to the level of the 1990s. Which was not a bad time, btw.
Link on evidence that it is the largest in history, adjusting for inflation and from a credible source? -
queencitybuckeyeptown_trojans_1;501507 wrote:WTF? Taxes will go back to the level of the 1990s. Which was not a bad time, btw.
Are you implying cause and effect? -
ptown_trojans_1
queencitybuckeye;501515 wrote:Are you implying cause and effect?
Not at all. I'm just saying it would not be the end of the world. And I don't think it would be the highest in history. -
QuakerOats"1990's ... not a bad time" ------ because real conservatives took control of congress and reined in federal spending and the federal deficit.
When politicians spend borrowed money, they themselves should have to account for it. I am done with politicians who spend our money and future generations' money, then try and turn it all around and blame the rich as though their spending spree was the fault of the rich and they should have to fork over the difference. SCREW THAT AND SCREW THEM!! Get it? -
BGFalcons82
QuakerOats;501485 wrote:90 days to go before the largest tax increase in history, and the socialists in congress do nothing. What a great way to kickstart the economy. No one can plan on anything without knowing the rules and paremeters of the game and thus you will continue to see economic malaise.
Change we can believe in ................
This ^^^^ is the take-home from all of this. Nearly every economic pundit is saying there is about $3,000,000,000,000 sitting on the sidelines in corporations waiting to be used if, and only if, Obama stops attacking business, stops threatening Cap-n-Tax, and sets a STEADY course for the next 5 years. Until that happens, the money stays put. Quaker is spot on in identifying what the delays are causing. You want a stimulus? Set a course, keep low taxes, and get the hell out of the way....3 things the elitists in Washington just don't seem to understand one iota. -
ptown_trojans_1
QuakerOats;501528 wrote:"1990's ... not a bad time" ------ because real conservatives took control of congress and reined in federal spending and the federal deficit.
When politicians spend borrowed money, they themselves should have to account for it. I am done with politicians who spend our money and future generations' money, then try and turn it all around and blame the rich as though their spending spree was the fault of the rich and they should have to fork over the difference. SCREW THAT AND SCREW THEM!! Get it?
Ok, not my point and you avoided my question. But, we agree on unnecessary spending. -
I Wear PantsIt isn't the largest tax increase in history nor will it be even close to the highest tax rates we've had. But go ahead and freak out like it is.