Here's a young entrepreneur who will be taxed to death by Obama...

[De Selby]

shootinstudent,

I see you've tuned out the campaign noise in the past few weeks.  Since then, we've had a big flap over a guy named Joe the Plumber.  And some excerpts of radio interviews that dropped a couple of days ago.  Check those things out, and then you might see why we feel Obama's economic program is going to be so ugly. 

Yeah, I caught all of that-but again, in the final analysis, I didn't see any proof that even "Joe the Plumber's" taxes would be that different under the Obama proposed plan.

There are lots of predictions of "so ugly" in the works.  I'd think for all those predictions there would at least be something more specific than "Obama's going to raise taxes! End of the economy!"....like, for example, how this kid (who supposedly will be taxed to death) will end up paying more taxes (we don't know that he will, or what Obama's plan is, or can't say without x y and z in this thread).   

I'd like to hear your views on Joe the Plumber and how much more in tax he would have to pay under Obama's plan, if you have something of that nature available or know of an article that discusses the specifics.

[Perd Hapley]

I was responding to this:

Okay, if Obama's tax plan won't resemble the plan as presented, how can we make all these dire predictions about what's going to happen to this small business?

Given his desire to "spread the wealth around" and "redistribute," in the Marxist sense, it is perfectly reasonable to surmise that Obama's "change" will mean more taxes on those who succeed. 

[Monkeyleg]

Shootinstudent, you've read and heard what Obama has proposed. He said he will give "tax cuts" to 95% of the population, and raise taxes on the 5% making over $250,000 a year. Even if that's the only detailed plan he'll present at this time, it's enough to see what the effect would be.

First, let's assume that the worst he does is let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top rates, raising the tax burden by roughly 4%. On someone with an adjusted net income of $250,000, that's an additional $10,000 in taxes. That person can just eat the $10K hit (not likely), pass it along to customers if he's self-employed, or not pass it along to his employees in the form of wages or bonuses. Or he might hold off on spending $10,000 on new equipment. No matter what decision he makes, it doesn't benefit his business, his employees, his customers, or the economy.

But why should he have to pay a greater percentage in taxes to begin with? Can you articulate a reason, other than "he can afford it?"

Even more bizarre is the idea that the 40% who pay no taxes get a "tax cut." Why? How do you justify that?

The reason for this tax scheme is obvious, and has been repeated many times: it will create a new entitlement constituency from the middle class who will become slaves to the Democrat party. This isn't about "fairness," it's about raw political power.

Then there's Obama's hiking of the capital gains tax. My brother retired a couple of years ago, and has saved a great deal of money for his retirement. If all goes well, he'll live a long life and still have money to pass along to his children.

Because he was frugal and careful with his savings, he's holding investments on which he made a return. Why should he have to pay more taxes on his retirement savings in order to help create this new entitlement constituency? How is that "fair?"

As I said, he'll likely have enough saved that his children will inherit some of what he saved. Obama wants to raise the death tax, taking the money my brother worked for and giving it to the new entitlement constituency. Why?

The young entrepreneur we're talking about will likely put in a lifetime of long hours and hard work, only to realize at the end what a sucker he'd been when he could have lived fairly well off the backs of others.



 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Okay, if Obama's tax plan won't resemble the plan as presented, how can we make all these dire predictions about what's going to happen to this small business?

I'd think there would be at least a clear cut threat to small businesses to justify the claim that this or any other small business will be "taxed to death" under Obama.

Don't be naive.  Obama's "tax cuts for everyone" plan is a lie. 

At best, Obama is going to cut interest tax rates for some of the population, while increasing all other taxes (corporate, cap gains, payroll, gasoline, you name it).  Then add in the new obligations he's going to impose on businesses to buy health care for employees, which amounts to yet another tax. 

At worst, Obama's going to increase everyone's income taxes too, along with all of the other taxation Obama wants to pile on.

How much more clear does the threat to small business (and everyone else!) have to be before you'll acknowledge it?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Just for you, shootinstudent:

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=15752.0

Still believe Obama's tax-cuts-for-everyone-under-$250k plan is for real?

[BReilley]

Yeah, I caught all of that-but again, in the final analysis, I didn't see any proof that even "Joe the Plumber's" taxes would be that different under the Obama proposed plan.

There are lots of predictions of "so ugly" in the works.  I'd think for all those predictions there would at least be something more specific than "Obama's going to raise taxes! End of the economy!"....like, for example, how this kid (who supposedly will be taxed to death) will end up paying more taxes (we don't know that he will, or what Obama's plan is, or can't say without x y and z in this thread).   

I'd like to hear your views on Joe the Plumber and how much more in tax he would have to pay under Obama's plan, if you have something of that nature available or know of an article that discusses the specifics.

Student, none of us know Joe the Plumber's actual situation.  We can't give you "proof" because nothing has changed yet.  I might as well ask you for mathematical proof that Obama's tax plan will allow us to generate a surplus and begin paying back our national debt.
What we can bank on is OBAMA'S OWN REPLY.  Although an attempt to sidestep Joe's question, it does provide some answers.  "It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."  Tell me where he said "I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't give the money you've worked for to other people".  He forgot to say that, didn't he?  What am I misunderstanding here?

What scares us, or at least me, is the line that I keep hearing from some of my customers, callers to talk shows, etc. that welfare is a dirty, racist word and that if the government wrote checks to the least-productive units of society they would be inspired to better themselves and "succeed".

[De Selby]

Wait, if it's about not giving your money to other people, there's simply no option in this election: McCain wants to and does give your money to other people too.  The only question is whose money will be taken, and to whom it will be given, between Obama and McCain.

I see the same so far: repetitions of dire predictions for the economy, yet no hard proof as to what Obama's tax policy will do to anyone, and on top of that I see the claim that Obama's tax policy can't even be defined.

[Perd Hapley]

We don't yet have enough proof that high taxes on wealthy people and on business are bad for the economy?  We don't yet have enough proof that Obama is devoted to the socialist theories that have wrecked prosperity in countless other times and places?   

[roo_ster]

We don't yet have enough proof that high taxes on wealthy people is bad for the economy?  We don't yet have enough proof that Obama is devoted to the socialist theories that have wrecked prosperity in countless other times and places?   

Yep, that's right.

If you're ignorant of the last 100 years history.

[Monkeyleg]

Shootinstudent, just who is it that McCain wants to give our money to?

[El Tejon]

Please let it be me!

[Nitrogen]

Businesses are taxed on profits, not revenue.

[MicroBalrog]

Shootinstudent, just who is it that McCain wants to give our money to?

He voted for the bailout, did he not?

Or does that not count?

[De Selby]

He voted for the bailout, did he not?

Or does that not count?

Exactly-he subsidized financial irresponsibility in the form of a $700 billion dollar welfare package to major banks and corporations.

GW Bush helped to reduce taxes on the rich, and of course, that did not save the economy from collapse.  It just rings hollow to my ears to hear this talk of destroying wealth when I look at the stock market and see billions destroyed every day....all following a period of progressively easier taxation on the rich and on corporations, and even after a massive gift from the government to corporations.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wait, what? 

You're trying to use the economic crash (caused by Greenspan's poor monetary policy and liberals' like Obama strongarming mortgage lenders) as an argument against lower taxes?

How exactly does that work?

Oh, yeah.  It doesn't.

[De Selby]

Wait, what?  You're trying to use the economic crash (the result of poor Greenspan's poor monetary policy and the liberals' like Obama strongarming mortgage lenders) as an argument against lower taxes?

How exactly does that work?

Oh, yeah.  It doesn't.

I don't think your summary of the causes is entirely accurate, but in any case, it's obvious that the more generous policy towards corporations and the wealthy did not prevent or stave off disaster.

The line about strongarming mortgage lenders is particularly odd-if it were the case, you'd think all the purchasers of those mortgage backed securities would've noticed and...not bought.  Yet they all seemed to believe the mortgages were worth something back when they came in AAA rated packages.

That's how that works-I don't buy your assumptions about minorities getting home loans being the cause of the entire financial collapse.  And the fact that the tax breaks for the wealthy and enormous gifts to corporations (to the tune of 700 billion) have not changed anything seems quite obviously to support the main point.

[Perd Hapley]

Accusing people of racism is quite beside the point.  And not very nice.

Two facts you might need to know.  Both candidates supported the bailout.  The bailout occurred AFTER the financial meltdown, so it can't exactly be the root cause.

But at least you did get the main point of our arguments; that lower taxes will prevent anything bad from ever happening.  Ever.  Anywhere.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't think your summary of the causes is entirely accurate, but in any case, it's obvious that the more generous policy towards corporations and the wealthy did not prevent or stave off disaster.

The line about strongarming mortgage lenders is particularly odd-if it were the case, you'd think all the purchasers of those mortgage backed securities would've noticed and...not bought.  Yet they all seemed to believe the mortgages were worth something back when they came in AAA rated packages.

That's how that works-I don't buy your assumptions about minorities getting home loans being the cause of the entire financial collapse.  And the fact that the tax breaks for the wealthy and enormous gifts to corporations (to the tune of 700 billion) have not changed anything seems quite obviously to support the main point.

Who ever said the purpose of tax cuts was to stave off economic disaster?  Your entire argument is a straw man.

The purpose of tax cuts is to allow people to keep what's rightfully theirs.  That there exists a business cycle is irrelevant to that purpose. 

I'm going to take your argument and use it against you.  We've had decades of social welfare programs in this country, and yet we still find ourselves in the midst of an awful economic malaise.  It's clear that these useless welfare programs did nothing to stave off economic disaster. 

[Perd Hapley]

I think what he's trying to say is that diet and exercise are not good for one's health.  After all, there's this guy who ate right, and stayed in shape, and that didn't keep him from getting really sick when he kept slicing himself with rusty bits of metal he found in dumpsters. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I also note that it's cold here in Indiana right now.  We've had these Bush tax cuts for years, and yet they still haven't managed to prolong the warm summer months one little bit.

Useless, stupid tax cuts...

[Monkeyleg]

I hereby vow that I will not engage in dead end arguments with Shootinstudent that only serve to keep me up late.

If I break my vow, remind me and I'll delete my own posts and give myself a one-week ban.