Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 218

Thread: Obama's run-in with a plumber/small business owner

  1. #41
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2805765]You've just exemplified the f*cked up thinking behind Obama's Robin Hood "fair" tax plan.


    Does this guy earn more than me? Yes. Do I begrudge someone that works hard and makes this kind of money, just because I haven't (so far) been able to do so? No.


    This is the EXACT type of person that generates wealth in the US -- a small business owner. Personally, I don't think it's "fair" to shift a higher tax burden to guys like this, just because they can "afford it".[/QUOTE]

    THANK YOU. Some people earn more because they work hard and deserve it!! That is what this country is based on. "Spreading the wealth" is unfair and will only encourage people to be lazy and take more government handouts. Everyone is talking about someone with a business pulling in $250,000 like they magically grew a money tree in their backyard and should share the fruits with everyone who wasn't so lucky. A $250,000 business owner isn't even that wealthy and these people deserve to be rewarded with extra disposable income.

  2. #42
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2805781]Because people who use tax loopholes to weasel out of paying wouldn't be able to write off their $20,000 umbrella stand as a business expense, would they?[/QUOTE]


    Damn unpatriotic weasels!

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Polidore22;2805777]That is absolutely asinine.[/QUOTE]

    psst.. It was joke, hence the ";)"

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=CTM;2805770]This I agree with. I'm not for higher taxes for anyone, in fact I'm for less govt spending primarily.

    My questions above where directed only at those that believe these types of policies are bad in a macro economic sense, [B]when I could see a tax like this on businesses causing more business reinvestment, which ultimately is good for the economy.[/B].[/QUOTE]


    I suppose. I just don't know why Obama arbitrarily picked 250K. How much money is too much money? I don't necessarily consider a family making 250K to be "stinking rich". A pharmaceutical sales rep and an actuary would probably combine for that much, if not more.
    Last edited by SanAntonio_JetFan; 10-15-2008 at 01:21 PM.

  5. #45
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2805765]You've just exemplified the f*cked up thinking behind Obama's Robin Hood "fair" tax plan.


    Does this guy earn more than me? Yes. Do I begrudge someone that works hard and makes this kind of money, just because I haven't (so far) been able to do so? No.


    This is the EXACT type of person that generates wealth in the US -- a small business owner. Personally, I don't think it's "fair" to shift a higher tax burden to guys like this, just because they can "afford it".[/QUOTE]

    this isn't about begrudging people anything

    it's about what's best for the nation as a whole

    im not some sort of brilliant economist but i don't see how the war, the bailout and everything else is gonna be paid for by tax cuts for rich. Bush hasn't paid for anything, it's all on the credit card. the money has to come from somewhere, no?

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=CTM;2805636]Ahh good point...

    Couple of question for the naysayers..

    If a small business is claiming more then 250k in earnings they are probably earning 2x that and not paying there fair share of taxes anyway. How do you address this or are you ok with it?

    Secondly, wouldn't a possible outcome of this be more busniess reinvestment/economic spending? In other words, if I earned 300k at my small business and didn't want tot pay the higher tax rate, I could upgrade my systems, or higher an employee, do some marketing, etc.. Would that be a bad outcome from a macro perspective?[/QUOTE]what planet do you come from??? the only out come to higher business taxes is passing it on to your customers.

  7. #47
    [QUOTE=CTM;2805796]psst.. It was joke, hence the ";)"[/QUOTE]

    Exactly...which is why the tax fraud point is not relevant.

  8. #48
    There is a simple truth that everybody is going to have to face.

    No matter who wins this election, taxes will go up.

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2805801]this isn't about begrudging people anything

    it's about what's best for the nation as a whole

    im not some sort of brilliant economist but i don't see how the war, the bailout and everything else is gonna be paid for by tax cuts for rich. Bush hasn't paid for anything, it's all on the credit card. the money has to come from somewhere, no?[/QUOTE]


    I agree that Bush has spent money like a drunken liberal.

    Hopefully, we can get something back from Iraq.

    I was against the bail out.

    I just don't see how burdening the middle to upper-middle class is going to stimulate a stagnant economy.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2805778]Fair enough. A bit of a non-answer, but eh.

    Guess you have no further opinion on the topic then.
    [B]
    We both know I wasn't asking what the Official Govt. idea of "Fair Share" was.:rolleyes:[/B]
    [/quote]
    Yes, but what you were trying to do was mock my claims at being economic conservative because I was trying to make a point about small business owners who aren't paying what they are obligated to.

    I believe in a fair tax ftr. If I make 200k and the fair tax is 15%, I'm still paying almost 25k more in taxes then a guy making 40k

    [quote]
    So you hang out with a Tax Cheat. Did you report him to the IRS?

    Guess it's okay for your friends not to pay THEIR fair share as long as you enjoy the fruits of their cheating, eh?:P

    So how were the ribs off that killer Grill?[/QUOTE]
    Nah, I should've explained better. I was trying to buy his business (auto repair) from him. These guys are a hoot. They have no real documentation, have cheated the government for years by under claiming their taxes and then have the audacity to expect to be able to sell their business based on their undocumented figures

    The show and tell at his house was supposed to be proof of income, along with some computer printouts from a sales system. It was quite clear to me that his business was earning in the neighborhood of what he said, but I told him I would not cheat (at least not that at that aggressive a rate;) (cough)) and offered to value the business in the middle of what he claimed on his taxes versus the offer sheet.

    And yes, after a very heated conversation with the business broker and owner, I was tempted to rat him out, but I'm not a rat.

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,974
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2805792]Damn unpatriotic weasels![/QUOTE]

    A $20,000 umbrella stand is patriotic?

    I dunno...sounds pretty ghey and French to me.

  12. #52
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2805815]
    I just don't see how burdening the middle to upper-middle class is going to stimulate a stagnant economy.[/QUOTE]

    i agree - but isn't Mccain burdening the true middle class with his cock-a-mamie healthcare plan for tax credits then taxing the benefits?

    the way i see it (and I could be wrong) but 250k isn't middle class... or upper middle class... it's lower upper or just plain upper class. NY/SF cost of living aside the average household making 250k a year is for all intents rich. at least compared to the bell curve as a whole.

    Again it's not super rich or rolling in dough without a care in the world but it's not really the middle class... unless you live in Manhattan

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Polidore22;2805807]Exactly...which is why the tax fraud point is not relevant.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I think it is a bit, since tax fraud is most rampant and costly in small business.

    You have to look at it these things from it's effect on the overall economy and on the individual. My two questions* were aimed at that.

    For the overall economy would a higher tax rate on earnings of large small businesses hurt the economy that bad, or could it conceivable help by encouraging business reinvestment?

    For the individual, sure overall I agree not to punish prosperity, but I'm also aware that small businesses in this area of income probably pay the lowest real tax rate of just about any contributor. If I'm looking for somewhere to raise revenues due to the financial mess, two wars and the boomer problem, this might not be a bad spot to look

    The bottom line is that something needs to be done, I'd hope we cut spending first and foremost, but my guess is that higher taxes are coming with either McCain or Obama, so we might as well be smart about where we take from. I'm not interested in passing this along for my kids to deal with either, so that's not a legitimate answer to me.

    *And they were honest to goodness questions, not ones I already have an answer for

  14. #54
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Red Bank
    Posts
    214
    [QUOTE=SMC;2805730]Good video and I don't understand how anyone can criticize Obama for giving the guy a straight answer.

    Plus, socialism is an economic theory, not, per se, a political theory. People yell out "socialist" but don't know what it means and use it, instead, as a sort of "diet communism" which it is far from it. The people invoking the term in McCain/Palin audiences are using it in a social context rather than economic.

    The opposite of socialism is not democracy, it's unfetterred free market. A country can have an economy with socialist influences and still be a democracy. Most of the US NATO allies fall into that category.

    Heck, the US economy since the New Deal has had socialist influences.

    This criticism of Obama's plan as redistribution of wealth, since that is what the US does anyway with a tax plan is off base. But it's a talking point for Republican pundits because it allows their supporters to make an illogical leap that being having a "socialist" economic plan is the same as being a "socialist" on social issues.[/QUOTE]

    The cornerstone of many political organizations is socialism and I believe that the people in McCain's audience do know enough to detest it's practice in the economy.

    But you raise an interesting point about an unfettered free market, and I doubt even the staunchest free-market libertarian would say that it should operate without laws. To put it bluntly, regulation is no more socialist than a law forbidding murder. Both are in place to maintain order and security, so stripping down what few rules they have under this light would seem to be pretty stupid. And after the financial crisis, I think that was proven to be correct.

    So what you have are some socialists painting regulation as proof that their beliefs are "correct" even though, in reality, they have nothing to do with it. Government interference in the markets, whether it be unfairly taxing imports to protect domestic businesses or subsidizing an entire industry, remains wrong. Federal ownership or influence of markets/businesses remains horribly misguided and potentially hazardous to all. And that is socialism.

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2805740]I'd love to hear you define, as the self-described registered Republican, what "fair share of taxes" means.[/QUOTE]

    Basically its not doing this:

    [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812?sp=true[/url]

  16. #56
    [QUOTE=CTM;2805820]Yes, but what you were trying to do was mock my claims at being economic conservative because I was trying to make a point about small business owners who aren't paying what they are obligated to.

    [B][U]I believe in a fair tax ftr[/U][/B]. If I make 200k and the fair tax is 15%, I'm still paying almost 25k more in taxes then a guy making 40k[/quote]

    Ah, now THERE is the answer I was looking for, your opinion on what constitutes "fair taxation".

    I happen to agree with you btw. Only trouble with any "fair tax" system is getting everyone to agree on what that percentage should be.

    [QUOTE=CTM;2805820]Nah, I should've explained better.[/quote]

    Naa, I was just kidding. But I appreciate the backstory nonetheless.

    [QUOTE=CTM;2805820]I was tempted to rat him out, but I'm not a rat.[/QUOTE]

    No snitch'in.

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2805865]Ah, now THERE is the answer I was looking for, your opinion on what constitutes "fair taxation".

    I happen to agree with you btw. Only trouble with any "fair tax" system is getting everyone to agree on what that percentage should be.

    [/QUOTE]
    I honestly don't know. I know fair tax is currently known as a consumption tax, but I'd also support a flat tax system similar to Forbes where income that is invested or saved would be exempt (similar to a consumption tax really, just collected differently). I believe he came up with 17%, and 0% for any family under 40k (as long as everyone's first 40k wasn't taxable). Sounds good to me considering I'm sure he did much more research then I every will on the matter :D

  18. #58
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    [QUOTE=Das Ken;2805842]The cornerstone of many political organizations is socialism and I believe that the people in McCain's audience do know enough to detest it's practice in the economy.

    But you raise an interesting point about an unfettered free market, and I doubt even the staunchest free-market libertarian would say that it should operate without laws. To put it bluntly, regulation is no more socialist than a law forbidding murder. Both are in place to maintain order and security, so stripping down what few rules they have under this light would seem to be pretty stupid. And after the financial crisis, I think that was proven to be correct.

    So what you have are some socialists painting regulation as proof that their beliefs are "correct" even though, in reality, they have nothing to do with it. Government interference in the markets, whether it be unfairly taxing imports to protect domestic businesses or subsidizing an entire industry, remains wrong. Federal ownership or influence of markets/businesses remains horribly misguided and potentially hazardous to all. And that is socialism.[/QUOTE]

    Understandable and well said.

    The criticism that Obama's tax plan as "wealth distribution" and socialist is ridiculous unless McCain admits that his own plan is the same because all modern tax policies are wealth distribution and socialist.

    As you stated, if use wish to criticize a candidate's tax policies as socialist, you have to criticize them all because they're all socialists.

    Only in pre-modern times were tax policies not socialist. The reason being that the wealthy taxed the poor to make the wealthy wealthier without giving anything back to the poor.
    Last edited by SMC; 10-15-2008 at 02:55 PM.

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2805597]bottom line the guy still running a business which makes more than 250k a year and s--t happens. I don't get why a man making over 250k a year is some sort of victim here. Maybe you guys can help me out. The way i see it his life is good before Obama, his life is still good after Obama.

    I gotta give credit to Obama for answering truthfully and not running away (as Palin does whenever she is asked a question).


    and as for all this SOCIALISM talk you conservatives just witnessed enough communism to last 500 years in the last days of Bush. so i don't want to hear it. it's hypocracy to think that McCain is some sort of free market capitalist when he voted for the bail out too.[/QUOTE]

    He has worked for it hasn't he, what have the welfare recipients worked for?
    He works his ass off to give his money to someone who never worked a day in his life.

  20. #60
    But according to Obama 90% of Small Businesses make less then 250,000 but according to the Small Business Bureau it is 80% thay make for then 250,000.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us