Obama's 3-Point Plan to Fix Everything

52 replies [Last post]
Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I like the clip of Obama talking about his 3 point plan...http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-16-2009/the-d-c-I'm outta here...enjoy your weekend! - still

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Funny, it will be even funnier when liberals learn to laugh at themselves (endless source of humor). Probably about when the money runs out.

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

Milyunair wrote:Funny, it will be even funnier when liberals learn to laugh at themselves (endless source of humor). Probably about when the money runs out.
 
When?   That may be the funniest thing I've heard all day. 

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

Obama should borrow up to 1.3 times GDP to keep our economy moving. Bush should have run a surplus budget from '04-'07 but he didn't.
 
Bush just passed the debt on to the next administration...and now you jackasses are complaining about it like it is a "liberal" debt? I could teach you something, but you probably aren't into learning.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Edit below.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Milyunair wrote:Teach me. Tell me how you talk to clients. Be funny, Billy.
 
If I make a hundred fifty grand, I should put a second mortgage on my house and invest in my practice and my life up to $195,000 to keep it moving. My dad should have paid for my college, and run a budget surplus to do it, but he didn't.
 
Dad didn't pay for my college, so I had to work while other kids partied, and I had to put my corporate job suits and ties on charge cards and it took years to pay off my student loans.
 
And now you  are saying, " Yeah, so what?" and I could just ask you to leave me alone and stop taking my money, but you probably aren't in to capitalism.
 
I would love to buy from you Mr. Billy prospect, but this needs to be a good fit, because we might be working together for a long time, so you go home and think about it and call me if you want to work together.
 
How did Keynes actually make his money, anyway? Oh, was it the taxpayers?
 
You call some professionals who manage capital morons for wanting to replace debt with capital? The fact that you do so in a righteous manner - is funny.
 
Do you get it? It's called - capital. You're being right -eous. Do you believe you can cloak economic theory in political emotion, and sell your ideas here? Go for it!
 
Be honest, dead men don't lie.

Conrad Dobler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-11

Billy Mays wrote:
 
Bush just passed the debt on to the next administration...and now you jackasses are complaining about it like it is a "liberal" debt? I could teach you something, but you probably aren't into learning.
 
I doubt you could teach anyone anything on the subject since you're consumed by Bush debt-drop in the Obama deficit ocean.

Conrad Dobler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-11

The irony of Jon Stewart using a clip from Idiocracy.....

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

Milyunair wrote:Milyunair wrote:Teach me. Tell me how you talk to clients. Be funny, Billy.
 
If I make a hundred fifty grand, I should put a second mortgage on my house and invest in my practice and my life up to $195,000 to keep it moving. My dad should have paid for my college, and run a budget surplus to do it, but he didn't.
 
Dad didn't pay for my college, so I had to work while other kids partied, and I had to put my corporate job suits and ties on charge cards and it took years to pay off my student loans.
 
And now you  are saying, " Yeah, so what?" and I could just ask you to leave me alone and stop taking my money, but you probably aren't in to capitalism.
 
I would love to buy from you Mr. Billy prospect, but this needs to be a good fit, because we might be working together for a long time, so you go home and think about it and call me if you want to work together.
 
How did Keynes actually make his money, anyway? Oh, was it the taxpayers?
 
You call some professionals who manage capital morons for wanting to replace debt with capital? The fact that you do so in a righteous manner - is funny.
 
Do you get it? It's called - capital. You're being right -eous. Do you believe you can cloak economic theory in political emotion, and sell your ideas here? Go for it!
 
Be honest, dead men don't lie.
 
So you are saying that Bush (Republican) debt is good.
And, Obama (Democratic) debt is bad.
 
You really are stupider than you think.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Just a thought, maybe I'm not so Keen on Bush debt.
 
Assuming THAT, and the fact that you're smarter, please explain yourself.

Conrad Dobler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-11

Billy Mays wrote:
 
So you are saying that Bush (Republican) debt is good.
And, Obama (Democratic) debt is bad.
 
You really are stupider than you think.
 
Huh? I can't speak for Milyunair, but my point is that you're trying to make the case that Obama's massive increase in debt is somehow acceptable cause Bush had a (much, much, much smaller) debt, or worse yet, that Obama's explosion of debt isn't his fault, it's Bush's.
 
We've discussed economics before and I'm still laughing about your rage at the rich ("they add nothing to the economy"). Just what are you doing in this business when you hate your potential clients? Speaking of potential, do you actually have any yet? In July weren't you talking about how tough it was opening your first account?

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

Milyunair wrote:
Just a thought, maybe I'm not so Keen on Bush debt.
 
Assuming THAT, and the fact that you're smarter, please explain yourself.
 
check out my blue balls...

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

Conrad Dobler wrote:Billy Mays wrote:
So you are saying that Bush (Republican) debt is good.
And, Obama (Democratic) debt is bad.
 
You really are stupider than you think.
 
Huh? I can't speak for Milyunair, but my point is that you're trying to make the case that Obama's massive increase in debt is somehow acceptable cause Bush had a (much, much, much smaller) debt, or worse yet, that Obama's explosion of debt isn't his fault, it's Bush's.
 
We've discussed economics before and I'm still laughing about your rage at the rich ("they add nothing to the economy"). Just what are you doing in this business when you hate your potential clients? Speaking of potential, do you actually have any yet? In July weren't you talking about how tough it was opening your first account?
 
#1 - I've opened quite a few accounts since August. I just needed to keep asking.
#2 - We will never agree on the Death Tax - give to god what is gods; give to ceasar what is ceasars. done!
#3 - Government should borrow and spend during a recession; government should pay down their debts during a boom. It's just like running a lemonaide stand. If Bush ran a lemonaide stand the way he ran our country, it would go out of business.
#4 - We are printing money to avert a disaster. If we were still on the gold standard, Bush would have bankrupted the country. It would be the great depression again.
#5 - I don't have to like the people I do business with. I'm not their friend - it's just business.
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Billy Mays wrote: Conrad Dobler wrote:Billy Mays wrote:
So you are saying that Bush (Republican) debt is good.
And, Obama (Democratic) debt is bad.
 
You really are stupider than you think.
 
Huh? I can't speak for Milyunair, but my point is that you're trying to make the case that Obama's massive increase in debt is somehow acceptable cause Bush had a (much, much, much smaller) debt, or worse yet, that Obama's explosion of debt isn't his fault, it's Bush's.
 
We've discussed economics before and I'm still laughing about your rage at the rich ("they add nothing to the economy"). Just what are you doing in this business when you hate your potential clients? Speaking of potential, do you actually have any yet? In July weren't you talking about how tough it was opening your first account?
 
#1 - I've opened quite a few accounts since August. I just needed to keep asking.
#2 - We will never agree on the Death Tax - give to god what is gods; give to ceasar what is ceasars. done!
#3 - Government should borrow and spend during a recession; government should pay down their debts during a boom. It's just like running a lemonaide stand. If Bush ran a lemonaide stand the way he ran our country, it would go out of business.
#4 - We are printing money to avert a disaster. If we were still on the gold standard, Bush would have bankrupted the country. It would be the great depression again.
#5 - I don't have to like the people I do business with. I'm not their friend - it's just business.
 

1. Good for you. Opening accounts is awesome
2. You are right. We'll never agree on that. How do you figure that my money is Caesar's?
3. Bush had a little thing called 9/11 to contend with. Fighting a war on Terror costs money. Since we have never fought that kind of war, what did you expect?
4. Bush, Bush, Bush. You don't blame other Presidents for spending ridiculous amounts of money? We would have had another great depression any number of times. Forget for a moment that presidents don't determine how productive we are, do you really think that Bush is the only president who has done things wrong?
5. Very true. But you do have to be able to empathize with them. Your opinions will come through in your recommendations and could possibly lose business in the long run.

Obama has chosen to increase the debt more than it already was. To "avert" high unemployment. Unemployment has gone up. Health Care reform will increase the debt beyond anything Bush has done. You want to talk about lemonade stands? Obama is selling the crap the cub scouts do at the grocery stores. At least Bush was trying to sell Girl Scout cookies. What about Tarp II? Smart? Of course not.

Billy, this country is great because of capitalism. We will continue to lose our status as a great power with ideas like the current administration.

I hope that President Obama takes a week off, reflects on his ideals, comes back and actually starts to think straight.

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11


I hate to quote wikipedia, but they have a great chart of debt/president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Republican presidents borrow money to pay for their "tax cuts". Just smoke & mirrors.
 
I've got to ask, where were the tea-parties back in '05??? Nothing but a bunch of tea-baggers, if you ask me.
 

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

Billy Mays wrote:
I hate to quote wikipedia, but they have a great chart of debt/president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Republican presidents borrow money to pay for their "tax cuts". Just smoke & mirrors.
 
I've got to ask, where were the tea-parties back in '05??? Nothing but a bunch of tea-baggers, if you ask me.
 

 
 
Wow, that is an impressive wikipedia entry which would make your point if Presidents could appropriate money, but they can't, so it doesn't.  As far as your next statement, typical liberal bluster.  Liberals feel that a tax cut is a governement subsidy, when in fact it is allowing those the earn the money to keep the money.  It is not a gift.  BTW, you do know that after Bush's tax cuts in 2003, federal tax receipts went up in 2004, 05, 06, and 07.  You know that, right?

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it...smoke and mirrors again.
and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase.
 
you don't know what you are talking about.
 

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

Billy Mays wrote:

 
if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it...smoke and mirrors again.
Sorry, couldn't find anything on Wikipedia, hope this helps.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase.
Might have something to do with spending.  Yep, pretty sure that is it.   To summarize, tax cuts led to higher tax receipts, yet spending put us further into debt.
 
you don't know what you are talking about.
It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding.  You say less taxes can't mean higher receipts, that doesn't make sense.   What you don't get is  less taxes means individuals have the ability to spend the money, which they do far more effeciently than the government.  The additional dollars available due to lower taxes lead to economic growth, which, you guessed it, increases tax receipts.  This isn't a new concept, you might want to look into it.
 

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding. 

 
This about sums it up.
 
So much for debating the virtues of continuing this modern leftist (according to a majority of the American people) experiment in Keynesian economics versus tax cuts - trading ignorant thoughts with an anonymous passive aggressive liberal and probably Godless dead guy named Billy who can't conduct discourse at the Economics 201 level and apparently thinks he's smarter than everybody else.
 
Smart enough to manage other people's money?
 
In a free country, the burden of proof is on the tax collector, not the creators of wealth.
 
It's pretty obvious that something big is happening in America right now, and it has more to do with taking personal responsibility than applying the tired ideas of the status quo to a depressed post industrial economy.
 
If you want to understand what is happening, follow job creation, investment and wages. This recession is not typical, and it is obvious that dropping money from airplanes to stimulate the economy, which has worked in the past, is not working now.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Milyunair wrote:It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding. 

 
This about sums it up.
 
So much for debating the virtues of continuing this modern leftist (according to a majority of the American people) experiment in Keynesian economics versus tax cuts - trading ignorant thoughts with an anonymous passive aggressive liberal and probably Godless dead guy named Billy who can't conduct discourse at the Economics 201 level and apparently thinks he's smarter than everybody else.
 
Smart enough to manage other people's money?
 
In a free country, the burden of proof is on the tax collector, not the creators of wealth.
 
It's pretty obvious that something big is happening in America right now, and it has more to do with taking personal responsibility than applying the tired ideas of the status quo to a depressed post industrial economy.
 
If you want to understand what is happening, follow job creation, investment and wages. This recession is not typical, and it is obvious that dropping money from airplanes to stimulate the economy, which has worked in the past, is not working now.
 
The only viable solution is to increase the small business economy, at the expense of big government, big corporations, unions, and even the social welfare agenda.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then.  As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush's $500 tax "rebate" (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don't get me started on Obama...the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today. But then, I don't know...maybe it has always been. 

fired@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-13

Still@jones wrote: I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then.  As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush's $500 tax "rebate" (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don't get me started on Obama...the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today. But then, I don't know...maybe it has always been. 

Wonder if people find it comical to listen to a failure talk about this business. Oooooooooooooo

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

fired@jones wrote: Still@jones wrote: I find it comical to listen to people who hold a hard line on the left or right and argue their point as if it was the salvation of our country. It is the left/right pendulum which makes our country the strongest. Gotta shake things up every now and then.  As for the movie Idiocracy, it made me think about Bush's $500 tax "rebate" (paid for out of future tax revenues) which was one of his keys to winning in 2000. And, don't get me started on Obama...the dumb vote is becoming one of the most important voting blocks in politics today. But then, I don't know...maybe it has always been. 

Wonder if people find it comical to listen to a failure talk about this business. OoooooooooooooFailure??? ...my December will be more than double what I made in my 15 weeks at Jones. Just had to find my rhythm.

Billy Mays's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-11

Primo wrote:Billy Mays wrote: if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it...smoke and mirrors again.
Sorry, couldn't find anything on Wikipedia, hope this helps.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase.
Might have something to do with spending.  Yep, pretty sure that is it.   To summarize, tax cuts led to higher tax receipts, yet spending put us further into debt.
 
you don't know what you are talking about.
It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding.  You say less taxes can't mean higher receipts, that doesn't make sense.   What you don't get is  less taxes means individuals have the ability to spend the money, which they do far more effeciently than the government.  The additional dollars available due to lower taxes lead to economic growth, which, you guessed it, increases tax receipts.  This isn't a new concept, you might want to look into it.
 
 
if you graph that tax receipts data, you will see that nothing was accomplished - it's a linear relationship.
smoke & mirrors.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

What would tax cuts do for my business? I'd hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.
 
What will borrowing and printing money do for my personal situation? Increase taxes.
 
Tax increases motivate me to cut expenses and personal spending, decrease costs, pay less in taxes.
 
It will be really interesting when the 70% of the stimulus money that went to my state, used for propping up government jobs and welfare, runs out.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
 
But who knows for sure, we'll see how your Keynesian  experiment plays out. Job creation is not smoke and mirrors when you're unemployed, continued funding of an oversized government during a recession just might be from the point of view of the folks who will someday be creating the real jobs.
 
Nick Murray said something like, talking to clients about investing is not about graphs and charts, but comes from someplace in the heart.
 
Americans, in their hearts, know it is wrong for the government to increase taxing and spending, while taxpayers are forced to make greater sacrifices.
 
It's just plain unAmerican.
 
 

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

Billy Mays wrote:Primo wrote:Billy Mays wrote: if cutting taxes increases tax receipts, everyone would do it...smoke and mirrors again.
Sorry, couldn't find anything on Wikipedia, hope this helps.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
 
and, if cutting taxes increased tax receipts, why did our debt increase.
Might have something to do with spending.  Yep, pretty sure that is it.   To summarize, tax cuts led to higher tax receipts, yet spending put us further into debt.
 
you don't know what you are talking about.
It simply takes a deeper understanding of economics which most liberals such as yourself have difficulty understanding.  You say less taxes can't mean higher receipts, that doesn't make sense.   What you don't get is  less taxes means individuals have the ability to spend the money, which they do far more effeciently than the government.  The additional dollars available due to lower taxes lead to economic growth, which, you guessed it, increases tax receipts.  This isn't a new concept, you might want to look into it.
 
 
if you graph that tax receipts data, you will see that nothing was accomplished - it's a linear relationship.
smoke & mirrors.

 
 
Bush cut taxes.  Tax receipts went up.  Simple fact.  You can deny it all day long and use terms like "smoke and mirrors" all you want, it doesn't change the facts.  I suspect you use terms like "smoke and mirrors" simply because the data did not fit your version of reality.  I guess it's easier than offering a counter argument.  Typical liberal BS.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Milyunair wrote:What would tax cuts do for my business? I'd hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.
 Isn't the exact opposite true. If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible. If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

Still@jones wrote: Milyunair wrote:What would tax cuts do for my business? I'd hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.
 Isn't the exact opposite true. If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible. If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.

 
 
...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Primo wrote:Still@jones wrote: Milyunair wrote:What would tax cuts do for my business? I'd hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.
 Isn't the exact opposite true. If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible. If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.

 
...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.What you've described is your payout of either $30.5k or $42.5k which can be spent on porsches, country club dues or vacations. Another option is to take the full $50k you've made and invest it further in your business or even in another business. Investment is always tax-free. It's only when you cash out to buy goods and services that you have to pay taxes. 

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

Still@jones wrote: Primo wrote:Still@jones wrote: Milyunair wrote:What would tax cuts do for my business? I'd hire a junior to service the lower decile of my book.
 Isn't the exact opposite true. If you keep the money for yourself, anything over $350,000/year is taxed at 39%. If you hire someone, it is fully deductible. If there was a flat 15% tax, you would be more inclined to keep it all for yourself and not hire anyone.

 
...or you could invest in your business, using money formerly dedicated to tax revenue to increase business revenues.  Example, if you are paying at 39%, increasing revenue by $100m at a cost of $50m would be a post tax profit of $30,500.  The same situation with a 15% tax would result in a post tax profit of $42,500 or about 40% more.  Now start thinking of the possiblilites with big numbers.What you've described is your payout of either $30.5k or $42.5k which can be spent on porsches, country club dues or vacations. Another option is to take the full $50k you've made and invest it further in your business or even in another business. Investment is always tax-free. It's only when you cash out to buy goods and services that you have to pay taxes. 

 
 
Isn't the point of investment to get a return?  All investments involve a risk/reward balance, if you increase the possible reward, people are more willing to take the risk associated.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Jones, it's not all country clubs and Porshes. The cost of education comes from after tax dollars. So does the formation of capital. A lot of guys my age are saying, why bother to hire Jr., it's not worth the trouble when total taxes ( payroll, state, federal, SS, property, unemployment, and now, my portion of the Medicaid tax for the taxpayers of, what is it, Nebraska?) exceeds one-half of gross revenues minus expenses. 
 

When you make more money, you don't necessarily go out and join another country club. Whatever. I'm getting to the point where I don't care if people don't understand wealth and job creation.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

$350,000/year is a good income. When you are making that kind of cake, I'm sure you aren't worrying about paying for kids education. As for job creation, I think the argument that it spurs job creation is counter-intuitive just because employees are deductible. I believe you would be more inclined to hire a junior with a tax increase. Another point I could make is that marginal tax rates help promote capital expenditures. If you know you are approaching $400k for a year; you might be more inclined to purchase a new computer network or a new company car (which you will use more for personal use but still take the deduction).  I think the better argument is that tax reductions lead to more
investment, in general, which has an overall positive effect. I believe
this might be true. I only question it because I believe a business
owner can invest more efficiently in their own business.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

You can only invest and write off so much. The way you keep track in business is at your personal balance sheet.
We all know small business clients who make the mistake of keeping too much of their net worth in the business. Investing in your own business is more efficient up to a certain point, it is also more risky.
 
If you take more risk, and taxes on the net go up with the risk, there's a tradeoff.
 
You still sound like one of these guys who thinks the definitiion of wealthy is someone whom makes more than $200,000. It feels like you're rubbing your hands together, coming with ideas on how governnent can allocate the money.
 
$350k is a nice income, the difference between $300,000 and $200,000 is huge, I'm talking more like the latter number in terms of disincentives to take more risk and create jobs. Maybe you're "there' at $350, there are a lot of small businesses that could use a stronger tax incentive to grow to that number.
 
But even $350 ain't that much, Obama almost comes across like you're greedy if you net $350. That's just wrong.
 
If I have more incentive to form capital outside my core business, I'm in a better position to protect my cash flow inside and outside the business (in my personal life).
 
I can leverage some of that cash to borrow more money (outside the business) to create new ventures in new jobs. Successful small business owners don't always take the money from business number one and just put it in the broad stock and bond markets.
 
Socialist tax increases and the growth of government and large corporations (which have at least some money rebated from the public economy, through direct investment and the result of lobbying, which provideds favorable business policy) as an ever larger percentage of the total economy, are slowly undermining the incentive for small business innovation and risk-taking.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Anyway, I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm probably not the only person in America who thinks it's not worth it to work harder and take more risk to have the last dollars of "profit" (revenues net of expenses) taxed at over fifty percent.
 
Maybe some other folks who are in position to create jobs for young people feel the same way. Maybe I'm just lazy and want to enjoy life now.
 
But the idea of working harder with more risk and stress, and paying more and more taxes to a government that prints and spends money and is growing as a percent of GDP, where public jobs with their pensions are looking more attractive than private jobs, with bailouts for unions and tax credits and handouts for people who are making just a little less money than a lot of small business owners, these thoughts and perspectives speak to the graphs and charts of Billy and company.
 
I would like to think that folks who earn a living managing other people's capital "kinda" appreciate what I'm talking about here.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Please don't get me wrong, I am undecided on this one. I don't disagree with any of your points, however, there are creative ways around most of them. I will support anything that I believe will be better for our economy. I'm not yet convinced that tax breaks for people making over $350k/year is best. And, as a person who is trying to earn a living managing other
people's capital, I believe much more effort needs to be put into reducing government spending than reducing tax rates. I do agree with Billy when he said where were the tea parties in '05. If these people really believed in good fiscal policy, they should have come out then. Everything else Billy posted is crap.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Yeah. It's not like I'm making that much money. ( Not anywhere near $350).
 
I don't think only  $350 plus  is at risk - with the health care bill, everyone will pay. ( Of the half of folks who pay taxes.)
 
$150,000 seems like a lot of money when you're making 80, and the mentality in America is to redistribute wealth. At $150,000, you begin to push past personal needs ( cash reserve, college, paying 12k for your own health care, having a little fun) to capital formation.
 
Increasing taxes at $150,000, ( I promise you, deductions are going away for small business owners at this level, health insurance premiums are going up, college costs are going up, state and local taxes are going up, etc.) is not a good idea. It reduces the incentive for a small business to hire. It discourages risk.
 
But the mentality in America has shifted. A lot of folks who work for companies like Intel, making $150,000 or $175,000, don't really mind paying taxes. They are getting hosed.
 
I would say, much of the "worry" of folks like me is what's coming, not the status quo. If you have been around for many decades, you know that what's happening is not good. Maybe you're diving for the exits, maybe you're just lying low and trying to figure how to position yourself, maybe you're reexamining your lifestyle and coming up with new strategies.
 
If you're a young guy and you're kinda wishy washy about this stuff, and paying attention to the importance of what the tea parties were in '05, that makes me nervous. I hope you understand that the people who are going to be creating the jobs that aren't government and are not big corporations (both are corrupt) are probably making an uncomfortable amount of money, for you, but they aren't running out and buying more golf club memberships and new cars, either.
 
We all got here through wealth creation, and the nature of private vs. public  investment capital itself is changing. It's interesting, but I don't think many people understand it.
 
Bottom line, it has become PC to be jealous of people who seem to be making a lot of money. I'm sure you can appreciate that whether you are trading on a $3,500,000 account or $350,000 or $35,000, it's just somebody else's money. It doesn't mean anything in of itself.
 
But you have a new mentality, where a group of people is standing in the corner, ready to solve all of the world's problems, with somebody else's money, in the name of compassion. Just as a big pot of money can corrupt the owner, so can a handout.
 
The irony is, a whole generation of baby boomers never bothered to save, so their interest in big government is clear.
 
What is not clear is why anyone under the age of fourty or fifty  would go along with the redistribution of wealth. I don't get it.
 
If I'm wealthy and "liberal" and don't mind wealth redistribution through taxes ( which comes from the folks who are in the process of forming capital, not the ones that already have it) - that seems cold.
 
If I'm poor and just want to be taken care of, I guess I understand that point of view.
 
The people in the middle - boy, you'd think we gotta stick together. Honestly, I'm inclined to lower my costs and risks and reduce my lifestyle. Big storm coming.
 
Reduced to an essence, you can strive to be a pensioned pilot who trades bonds and charity gossip with the monied literati or you can carry a gun in your glovebox and a Rolex on your wrist and sell guaranteed contracts. The irony thickens as the options narrow, all in the shadow of a growing public industrial economy that strangles the common man who aspires to create "wealth".
 
Thus begins a tea party in the spirit of our ancestors.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I agree we are seeing a backlash against wealthier individuals...mostly because they are perceived to be the cause of our economic collapse. I'm sure this will pass as soon as the lines get shorter at the soup kitchens. The health care issue is something that has to get done before it bankrupts social security. I'm glad to see something getting done (whether what gets done is good or bad, we'll have to wait and see). The republican party had 6-8 years to put forth their plans and all they did was pass medicare bills with no way to fund them (except more borrowing). I agree there has been a progressive favoritism towards large conglomerates over small businesses - I believe this is very bad.  The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation...the tea party "movement" of today is just a bunch of sore losers. To me, Tea Party Activist = Greenpeace Activist. I wouldn't associate with either. I am a solid supporter of private investment over public investment. As I've mentioned before, I believe we should have all taxes (any income source that supports the government - including parking
meters/tickets - you get the point); all government spending should be
capped at 25% of GDP. It is currently about 55%; I believe this is bad. 

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Yep.
 
This article is worth investing a little time.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
 
  

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Milyunair wrote:Yep.
This article is worth investing a little time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read  I'm sorry, but that reads like a fox news rant. Sure, they hit all the talking points, but no real substance. Here's my essay...this is worth investing a little time:Health care costs have risen by 7% per year for the past 8 years. Rising health care costs are crippling small businesses. During the years 2000-2008, when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency they accomplished nothing to curb these increases. I don't know if Obama will succeed, but I'm glad he is trying. It needs to be done.

52new's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-14

I believe that national healthcare is a RIGHT of every citizen. I consider it a right for two reasons. 1. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated whether they can pay or not. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath to care for others, it's a very moving ceremony. So we all get healthcare one way or another right now. But the current system is ripe with inefficiencies. 2. The most cost effective way to pay for healthcare is for everyone to be in the same risk pool and share costs.
We don't have a health insurance system now, just a hodge podge that evolved over time with little rhyme or reason. Private insurance has been an expensive disaster. If we model our system on France or Denmark we will be much better off. No matter what, healthcare will be a good 17% of GNP going forward.

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Just for the record, I believe in reasonable health care reform. There should be a basic level of coverage for all, and I don't like paying ten thousand bucks a year for my "insurance", which already subsidizes those indigent emergency room visits.
 
Okay guys, I don't support the process or the bill. This is your baby. You can take all of the credit and responsibility going forward. Enjoy your victory. Congratulations for forcing this partisan solution on the masses.
 
Time for Americans to move on.

GWB43's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-31

well, most o' ya voted fo' dis here community organizer. Him an' Hilliary tried ta top each other on healthcare, an' dis here iz what we's git. If only Norm Coleman got uh few breaks, dis here bill would never gots seen da light o' dayYa'll is mad stupid.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Still@jones wrote:$350,000/year is a good income. When you are making that kind of cake, I'm sure you aren't worrying about paying for kids education. As for job creation, I think the argument that it spurs job creation is counter-intuitive just because employees are deductible. I believe you would be more inclined to hire a junior with a tax increase. Another point I could make is that marginal tax rates help promote capital expenditures. If you know you are approaching $400k for a year; you might be more inclined to purchase a new computer network or a new company car (which you will use more for personal use but still take the deduction).  I think the better argument is that tax reductions lead to more investment, in general, which has an overall positive effect. I believe this might be true. I only question it because I believe a business owner can invest more efficiently in their own business.

 
Still, you've got this pretty much backwards.   Let's assume that you make $300,000 and are paying $100,000 in taxes and taking home $200,000.  If taxes go up and you are now paying $150,000 in taxes and taking home $150,000, the last thing that you are going to do is hire an employee.   You start to get worried about paying your own bills. 
 
Imagine things go in the other direction and your after tax pay goes from $150,000 to $200,000.  You now have $50,000 "extra" that your family isn't used to spending.  That money can be reinvested in your business to try to make more money.
 
Let's use an extreme example.  Taxes are very low for incomes of below $300,000 and very high for incomes above $300,000.  You make $300,000.  Would you hire someone?  The answer should be "no".  There is no benefit.  If you don't recoup the expense, the hiring costs you money.  If hiring someone helps you make money, it doesn't give you much benefit because of the higher taxes.  Instead, you would simply choose to work less because high taxes take away one's incentive to make more money. 

52new's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-14

Tell me, you math wizards, how would your tax go from 100k to 150k, when the tax rate only goes from 35% to 38%? And that's the top marginal rate. The super rich own 80% of the country's assets. They dont pay 35%. Stop making yourselves victims here. You are not in their league. And even Warren Buffet says they should pay more tax.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Listen, "Mr. I'm the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50's", the post isn't about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.
 
The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.
 
 

52new's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-12-14

anonymous wrote: Listen, "Mr. I'm the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50's", the post isn't about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.
 
The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.
 
 

Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50's when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

52new wrote: anonymous wrote: Listen, "Mr. I'm the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50's", the post isn't about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.
 
The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.
 
  Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50's when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.

 
A high marginal tax rate on individual incomes wouldn't stop a corporation from hiring someone.   It would stop an individual from taking the risk needed to earn more money with no chance of reward. 

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Well guys, if taxes were reasonable and I was motivated and hiring and Anonymous was looking, I think he would be the best qualified candidate in terms of understanding the economic minds of my small business owner clients.
This discussion shows what's wrong with America. I've been to Buffet's annual meeting, owned BRK B, and respect the man, but if you've been reading the business news at all, you know he's in bed with the big boys now. Bad example of pull - yourself -up - by - your  - own - bootstraps.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

52new wrote: anonymous wrote: Listen, "Mr. I'm the most sucessful person ever despite having to start over at Jones in my 50's", the post isn't about a 50% increase in the tax rate, it is just making the point that an increase in the tax rate takes away the incentive to take risk.
 
The Super rich don't pay 35% because one is super rich because of their assets and not their income.   It's not about victimization.  It's about reality.  I'm a small business owner.  I can't/won't hire more employees if the tax situation makes the risk greater than the reward.    Who cares what Buffet says?  He doesn't care about passing money to the next generation and he has more money than he can spend.
 
 

Excuse me, sh*t for brains. I guess in the '50's when our economy was growing, nobody hired anybody because the marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. Learn a little economic history before you waste my time,jackass.Hey 52, are you by chance meletio?  He was at least funny.

Primo's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-18

52new wrote:Tell me, you math wizards, how would your tax go from 100k to 150k, when the tax rate only goes from 35% to 38%? And that's the top marginal rate. The super rich own 80% of the country's assets. They dont pay 35%. Stop making yourselves victims here. You are not in their league. And even Warren Buffet says they should pay more tax.

 
Then why doesn't he?  You can overpay your taxes, in fact the IRS has an account set up to receive such funds.  So when Buffet or Obama or whoever else says the "rich" need to pay their fair share, I say you first, add some voluntary funds to your IRS check on April 15.  Of course this does not happen.  Buffet has talked about his secretary paying at a higher marginal rate than he does.  This is by HIS choice.  He pays himself in dividends to take advantage of the tax code.  If he truly felt that this was unfair, he could simply hire himself as an employee and pay himself regular income.  Buffet also thinks the death tax is a good idea.  Of course every nickel he has when he dies goes into trust.  If he truly felt the death tax was a good idea, he should subject himself to it.
 

Milyunair's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-25

Buffet has made fun of the idea of consumers paying professional financial advisors, like us, to help with their money. Then he talks about how the rich need to pay more taxes, while doing (special?) business with Wall Street. Buffet supported the election Chicago Wonder. His pals like Bill Gates don't really mind us paying more taxes and having less business, either. Yeah, we should worship Warren Buffet, technology, big government, big business.
 
I can't believe a few of the folks here call themselves financial advisors. Who are they advising?

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×