Constructive gadfly
Published on November 23, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

Granted the economy is tanking, but that is no reason for Obama to back down on increasing the tax rate on those above 250k income. Nevertheless, to avoid further roiling the market, he should do it in increments of 1% until Bush's increase expires in 2010. It would be ridiculous for a new president to allow himself to be intimidated by Wall Street's thugs and economic pundits. The wealthy need to invest regardless of the rate. And as for capital gains, there's not going to be very much  anyway and if anything upping the gain rate to 20% would actually dampen volatility.  


Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 27, 2008

Most people who make $250k or more in taxable income are small business owners. If you raise their taxes, they simply have less to invest back into their businesses in terms of hiring more people, building infrastructure, etc.
Not so. Small businesses may have over 250k of revenue but that is not the same as taxable income. Most use Scedule C and make all kinds of write offs and are lucky if they come close to 100k. As for the example of investing back into the company there is no tax issue as long as its proven.

on Nov 27, 2008

I could see a future where even I would consider moving things to say Ireland if taxes were high enough provided it wasn't just easier to just throw in the towel

Hey! We'd welcome you.

 

on Nov 27, 2008

As for Ireland "slashing" taxes, it never had much of an economy to tax to begin with. [/quote]

 

This statement alone proves you simply don't know what you're talking about (or are choosing to remain blind to the facts). The Irish economy was among the strongest in Europe through the 90's, and once they lowered coprorate taxes in 2003 their economy far outpaced those of other European nations with higher tax rates.

 

[quote who="stevendedalus" reply="21" id="1954678"]
Most people who make $250k or more in taxable income are small business owners. If you raise their taxes, they simply have less to invest back into their businesses in terms of hiring more people, building infrastructure, etc.

Not so. Small businesses may have over 250k of revenue but that is not the same as taxable income. Most use Scedule C and make all kinds of write offs and are lucky if they come close to 100k. As for the example of investing back into the company there is no tax issue as long as its proven.

 

Again, you don't seem to understand how business and taxes works. Only operating expenses can be deducted from total profit. Everything else is taxed, and we're talking about people and companies that clear $250K or more, not those who only clear $100K so I don't understand why you bother to even bring them up here.

Raise those taxes and that business can no longer afford to grow, re-invest in itself, or hire more people.  Yes, companies do reinvest much of their profits back into the company, AFTER those profits are taxed. Raise those taxes and they have less to reinvest and grow their company. They more likely will have to lay people off to survive. Businesses grow on their profits not on their taxes, and the small business owners of this country drive our economy.

Tax hikes will do nothing more than cause increased unemployment and ultimately reduce total tax revenues as fewer people will be working and fewer businesses will grow.

on Nov 27, 2008

Raise those taxes and that business can no longer afford to grow, re-invest in itself, or hire more people.  Yes, companies do reinvest much of their profits back into the company, AFTER those profits are taxed

Not entirely accurate - if you choose to reinvest profits into your business by incurring various expenditure that is allowable for tax purposes, then that will reduce your actual taxable profits, meaning you pay less tax, and the profit reinvested wasn't after tax.

What's done with the profit that has been taxed after tax? Well it'll probably either be reinvested in the business in an area not granting immediate tax relief, or it will be taken as income (business), or given to shareholders (company).

They more likely will have to lay people off to survive

If they're struggling to survive, that suggests their profits will be minimal, or they may even have a loss, hence the tax rate wouldn't have much immediate impact.

 

Tax hikes will do nothing more than cause increased unemployment and ultimately reduce total tax revenues

Highly unlikely that increases in taxes would reduce total revenues. I can't remember the rough estimated level that taxes would need to be for an increase to be expected to decrease tax revenues, but it's much higher than the US's current tax level. Tax increases will reduce the tax base, but typically not by enough to outweigh the increased proportion of tax gained from the tax base.

on Nov 27, 2008

- if you choose to reinvest profits into your business by incurring various expenditure that is allowable for tax purposes, then that will reduce your actual taxable profits, meaning you pay less tax, and the profit reinvested wasn't after tax.

Operating expenses are allowable, if they are incurred during that tax year. Operating expenses do not grow a business and are not an investment in that business. Capital investments grow a business. Capital investments come from after taxes monies.  When I ran my own trucking company I could not deduct the price of my truck or trailer, just the interest on the loan for them. I could deduct fuel, tires, maintenance, and everything else related to operating it, but not the truck itself.

For me to buy a second truck and consequently put a driver to work driving it, I would have to clear enough money after taxes to be able to afford to pay for that truck. Rasing my taxes would reduce an already slim profit margin and kill the chance of my being able to do so and thus prevent me from growing my business or creating jobs. That is not how one goes about growing the economy.

 

Highly unlikely that increases in taxes would reduce total revenues. I can't remember the rough estimated level that taxes would need to be for an increase to be expected to decrease tax revenues, but it's much higher than the US's current tax level. Tax increases will reduce the tax base, but typically not by enough to outweigh the increased proportion of tax gained from the tax base.

That would only be true if the GDP and employment situations remained constant. If higher taxes caused a large increase in unemployment and sharp negative business growth, tax revenues would have to fall. And reducing the tax base is a nice way of saying it would kill businesses and put people out of work. Hardly a good option.

on Nov 28, 2008

The few corporations who actually pay 35% are low and they have huge write offs and shelters to minimize the effect of 35%. Apparently you never heard of churning--the process of brazenly selling and buying not for the client but to amass extradordinay fees. How do you account for multibillions in bonuses for traders and brokers? Get a life.

It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.

on Nov 28, 2008

Nitro Cruiser

The few corporations who actually pay 35% are low and they have huge write offs and shelters to minimize the effect of 35%. Apparently you never heard of churning--the process of brazenly selling and buying not for the client but to amass extradordinay fees. How do you account for multibillions in bonuses for traders and brokers? Get a life.
It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.

 

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people. ITS AWESOME@

on Nov 29, 2008

It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.
It's not that simplistic, peabrain: corporations still have to consider their market competitors before bluntly passing on the tax cost to the consumer; furthermore, it becomes a vicious circle by passing it on it comes back to haunt them the next year as they will have even more profit to tax. Maybe under the xmas tree you'll find a book on economics. 

on Nov 29, 2008

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people.
You're as laughable as Nitro.

on Nov 29, 2008

Not so. Small businesses may have over 250k of revenue but that is not the same as taxable income. Most use Scedule C and make all kinds of write offs and are lucky if they come close to 100k. As for the example of investing back into the company there is no tax issue as long as its proven.

We're not talking about what small businesses make. We're talking about what people who make $250k or more a year do: They own small businesses.

Most of the people (look it up) who have taxable income > $250k are people who have a small business attached either as an LLC or more commonly as an S-corporation.

on Nov 29, 2008

We're not talking about what small businesses make.
Precisely what I said earlier.

Most of the people (look it up) who have taxable income > $250k are people who have a small business attached either as an LLC or more commonly as an S-corporation.
These have widespread write offs.

on Nov 29, 2008

You're as laughable as Nitro

Or Richard pining for FDR's return.

on Nov 29, 2008

corporations still have to consider their market competitors before bluntly passing on the tax cost to the consumer

That maybe somewhat true if you consider state and local taxes, But the federal tax rate is not variable. You pay your percentage after you reach a certain dollar amount. Two companies of approximately the same size making similar products would share the same federal tax bracket. You can figure in what ever you like to skew the bottom line. If you care to give an example of any corp, that doesn't pass on it taxes along with other costs (Santa at the North Pole, doesn't count), I'll change my opinion that you could be an Alzheimer's patient out of touch with reality.

on Nov 29, 2008

stevendedalus

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people.You're as laughable as Nitro.

 

What the higher taxes will be passed on to the consumer. TO think otherwise its just silly. You think companies just soak up cost? didnt you notcie a raise in the food cost recently due to the higher fuel charges? this is just one example of companies making money and passing on the cost to the consumer.

on Nov 29, 2008

Alzheimer's patient out of touch with reality.
Ouch. COLA has many other factors--state & school taxes, floating bonds, community operating costs, so you think because of a direct publicized levy on a business it's all attributed to mean old federal tax.

Or Richard pining for FDR's return.
Yea, right on!

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5