Obama wants to punish your success!

[Boatdrinks]

I know the title is way off base but how is taking money from a sucessful business owner and giving to someone else giving them the same chance at success? Explain exactly how that's going to play out. I'd love to hear it. Anybody??

 

It's not. But me paying less and someone making more than 95% of taxpayers paying more sounds good to me. I don't know about "giving" it to someone else. I'm talking about running the damn government. pying down the deficit caused by this unnecessary war among other things. I'll pay my fair share. The guy at the top should pay his too. No, the best predictor of success is who our parents are, plain and simple. Something we have no control over whatsoever. That determines what we are taught, where we are taught and where we live. Unless you have some extraordinary talent like say, being a pro athlete, that transcends race and circumstance. Otherwise your abilities may go undiscovered, untapped. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who are never taught the value of learning and working. We are products of our environment. Why are suburban schools so much more successful than inner city schools. Do all the less intelligent live in the city? Do students who are fortunate enough to relocate to the 'burbs become magically smarter? No. So taking money from one and giving to another will not increase their chance at success. That seems a rather naive definition of what happens to tax dollars anyway. I mean, yours might go directly to bombing Iraq, or to NASA. Who the Fu*k knows where it goes? But it makes sense that those who reap the most rewards from our society should pay more. that's why income tax is progressive. It's not like when I write my check to Uncle Sam every year that I envision it going to the pocket of some sloth on welfare. I'm still voting for Obama though, because Republican is just code for religious zealot who wants to control people.

[Alaska Darin]

Bubbles happen, but Clinton did something about it and we had a "soft landing", not so soft on the real estate deal under Bush.

Ridiculous.

[Alaska Darin]

It's not. But me paying less and someone making more than 95% of taxpayers paying more sounds good to me. I don't know about "giving" it to someone else. I'm talking about running the damn government. pying down the deficit caused by this unnecessary war among other things. I'll pay my fair share. The guy at the top should pay his too. No, the best predictor of success is who our parents are, plain and simple. Something we have no control over whatsoever. That determines what we are taught, where we are taught and where we live. Unless you have some extraordinary talent like say, being a pro athlete, that transcends race and circumstance. Otherwise your abilities may go undiscovered, untapped. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who are never taught the value of learning and working. We are products of our environment. Why are suburban schools so much more successful than inner city schools. Do all the less intelligent live in the city? Do students who are fortunate enough to relocate to the 'burbs become magically smarter? No. So taking money from one and giving to another will not increase their chance at success. That seems a rather naive definition of what happens to tax dollars anyway. I mean, yours might go directly to bombing Iraq, or to NASA. Who the Fu*k knows where it goes? But it makes sense that those who reap the most rewards from our society should pay more. that's why income tax is progressive. It's not like when I write my check to Uncle Sam every year that I envision it going to the pocket of some sloth on welfare. I'm still voting for Obama though, because Republican is just code for religious zealot who wants to control people.

Who the !@#$ knows where it goes?

 

You know, someday I hope you get "rich" so you'll start to care more about what happens to tax payer money.

[PastaJoe]

You ignore the key point. You are not spending your money on a company that will make you 250k. You are risking your money. Maybe you make 250k, maybe you make 0. If taxes are raised you have the same chance of failure, the same downside, and a lower upside. You are less likely to take the risk?

 

Why wouldn't you take the risk? If you don't make 250k profit from the company, you're not going to see any tax increase, so there was no increased risk or loss of profits. If you are making 250k+ in profits, then you're still making out OK even with a return to Clinton era tax rates. And you'll get a tax break for every new job created in the first two years. And you won't be paying the tax that McCain wants to impose on employer based health care.

[loyal2dagame]

It's more simple than that.

 

Would you risk your money to start a business, with a 20% chance of success say, if success meant earning 200k after taxes? It depends on the numbers.

 

Would you risk that same amount of money, against the same odds, if the payout for success were lowered to 150k? You would be much less likely to than in the previous situation, and more likely to bank the money and keep working for the Man.

 

Higher taxes on a successfull outcome means less people risking their money to start businesses, which ultimately means less job growth.

 

 

i'd have to disagree this this statement. if you are making 50k to 75k per year, and start a business making 150k or even 200k profit after expenses per year, how are you worse off due to higher taxes? further more, if you want to be a business owner, you will be. now whether the business grows or fails has little to do with taxes and everything to do with the owners decisions.

 

you have at least doubled or tripled your income and are now your own boss...........

 

simple math. the people who overthink it are the ones who have a problem with it.

[ieatcrayonz]

i'd have to disagree this this statement. if you are making 50k to 75k per year, and start a business making 150k or even 200k profit after expenses per year, how are you worse off due to higher taxes? further more, if you want to be a business owner, you will be. now whether the business grows or fails has little to do with taxes and everything to do with the owners decisions.

 

you have at least doubled or tripled your income and are now your own boss...........

 

simple math. the people who overthink it are the ones who have a problem with it.

Dude I have started many businesses and none of them have failed. When you are in my income level there is very little risk. But I am really not a fair comparison.

 

The guy you describe has no guarantee that his income will go from 50k to 150k. It may go from 50k to 0k. He might risk trying for the 150k if he got to keep 125k but not risk if he knew he'd only keep 100k.

 

Most people that start their own businesses do not have multiple billions like me. If their income goes from 50k to 0k after trying something, they can't just walk down to the safe in the auxiliary Italian marble storage area, pop in the combo and grab a few 100k in case they need it for the weekend like me. They need to shelter their kids. They might be averse to risk and more taxes would make them even more averse.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama's plan because it keeps these peons out and allows me to make even more, but I'm just saying you are missing the point.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Dude I have started many businesses and none of them have failed. When you are in my income level there is very little risk. But I am really not a fair comparison.

 

The guy you describe has no guarantee that his income will go from 50k to 150k. It may go from 50k to 0k. He might risk trying for the 150k if he got to keep 125k but not risk if he knew he'd only keep 100k.

 

Most people that start their own businesses do not have multiple billions like me. If their income goes from 50k to 0k after trying something, they can't just walk down to the safe in the auxiliary Italian marble storage area, pop in the combo and grab a few 100k in case they need it for the weekend like me. They need to shelter their kids. They might be averse to risk and more taxes would make them even more averse.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama's plan because it keeps these peons out and allows me to make even more, but I'm just saying you are missing the point.

Butt, Butt small businesses are exempt????

[loyal2dagame]

The guy you describe has no guarantee that his income will go from 50k to 150k. It may go from 50k to 0k. He might risk trying for the 150k if he got to keep 125k but not risk if he knew he'd only keep 100k

 

the guy i describe does make 150 to 200k after expenses. please re-read what i wrote.

 

and as far as going from 50k to 0k, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And if you want to talk communism take a look at this bailout plan. That's the real communism in this country.

 

You mean the bill introduced by the Democratic Senate and approved by the Democatic House?

 

[Taro T]

i'd have to disagree this this statement. if you are making 50k to 75k per year, and start a business making 150k or even 200k profit after expenses per year, how are you worse off due to higher taxes? further more, if you want to be a business owner, you will be. now whether the business grows or fails has little to do with taxes and everything to do with the owners decisions.

 

you have at least doubled or tripled your income and are now your own boss...........

 

simple math. the people who overthink it are the ones who have a problem with it.

If you are making $50k/year in a relatively stable job, you make $50k/year. (Not including benefits which typically add another 40% to the total; so when you think about starting up your own business you are looking at foregoing $70k.)

 

When you decide to forego that $50k ($70k) to take a flyer on a new business, you are assuming a LOT of risk. The odds are very high that you won't come close to getting that $50k ($70k) in the 1st year; much less netting $150-200k/year. You probably won't get that $50k ($70k) back in the 2nd year either. By the 5th year, you will either be grossing that $150-200k/year or you will be looking for another $50k/year job. Having additional taxes to pay and/or additional regulatory hurdles you have to jump over will not make it easier to get to that profitable 5th year. A rational person, thinking about starting a business, will see the additional costs and those costs may end up the deal breaker that makes it too risky to try. Additional expenses will push the breakeven point out further into the future. Even if the rational person thinks the business can overcome those additional burdens, it doesn't mean it can.

 

You state that "if you want to be a business owner, you will be." So, are you a business owner or do you have absolutely no desire to own a business? I know very few people that don't "want" to own a business. I do know very many that don't have the means to go out on their own (whether that being due to capital, desire, foresight, capability, personal situation, or a combination) but would like to. You comments lead me to believe you don't own a business. Why don't you go out and run your own business when it is so easy to "at least double or triple your income and are now your own boss?"

 

the guy i describe does make 150 to 200k after expenses. please re-read what i wrote.

 

and as far as going from 50k to 0k, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Fine, the guy you describe makes it. 2 questions: how long did it take him to do it and how many others ended up failing? The person that successfully starts a small business is in the vast minority of those that try to make a go of it. Your increasing the expenses he faces puts that successful business in an even greater minority.

 

Again, why don't you go out and "make an omlette" and start your own business? Your comments imply that you believe it isn't very hard to do.

[Chef Jim]

"Quite rapid"? I guess in the grand scheme of the universe "years" is rapid but when you're out of a job, without healthcare and afraid of losing your home, a couple of years is NOT rapid.

 

I'm not sure if you're talking about what's going on today. But we already recovered from the busting o the tech bubble, quite nicely I might add. Then we had another bubble, real estate, that is bursting as we know right now. Check back with me in a couple of years to see how quickly we recover from this one. However histrically the bubbles burst pretty quickly and we may bounce around at the bottom for awhile but the recoveries are usually rather quick once they finally start.

[blzrul]

I'm not sure if you're talking about what's going on today. But we already recovered from the busting o the tech bubble, quite nicely I might add. Then we had another bubble, real estate, that is bursting as we know right now. Check back with me in a couple of years to see how quickly we recover from this one. However histrically the bubbles burst pretty quickly and we may bounce around at the bottom for awhile but the recoveries are usually rather quick once they finally start.

I don't recall the markets dropping this far, this fast, the last time. And that mess was exascerbated by 9/11.

 

Just imagine how bad it would be if, God forbid, another terror attack were to happen.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

If you are making $50k/year in a relatively stable job, you make $50k/year. (Not including benefits which typically add another 40% to the total; so when you think about starting up your own business you are looking at foregoing $70k.)

 

When you decide to forego that $50k ($70k) to take a flyer on a new business, you are assuming a LOT of risk. The odds are very high that you won't come close to getting that $50k ($70k) in the 1st year; much less netting $150-200k/year. You probably won't get that $50k ($70k) back in the 2nd year either. By the 5th year, you will either be grossing that $150-200k/year or you will be looking for another $50k/year job. Having additional taxes to pay and/or additional regulatory hurdles you have to jump over will not make it easier to get to that profitable 5th year. A rational person, thinking about starting a business, will see the additional costs and those costs may end up the deal breaker that makes it too risky to try. Additional expenses will push the breakeven point out further into the future. Even if the rational person thinks the business can overcome those additional burdens, it doesn't mean it can.

 

You state that "if you want to be a business owner, you will be." So, are you a business owner or do you have absolutely no desire to own a business? I know very few people that don't "want" to own a business. I do know very many that don't have the means to go out on their own (whether that being due to capital, desire, foresight, capability, personal situation, or a combination) but would like to. You comments lead me to believe you don't own a business. Why don't you go out and run your own business when it is so easy to "at least double or triple your income and are now your own boss?"

 

 

Fine, the guy you describe makes it. 2 questions: how long did it take him to do it and how many others ended up failing? The person that successfully starts a small business is in the vast minority of those that try to make a go of it. Your increasing the expenses he faces puts that successful business in an even greater minority.

 

Again, why don't you go out and "make an omlette" and start your own business? Your comments imply that you believe it isn't very hard to do.

Two thoughts as someone who is doing just that right now as a photographer. I agree with your analysis, but from a Fed tax side, this whole debate doesn't affect me much at my net revenue for my first year and probably won't for the next two years, after that maybe. I get my insurance through my wife and have long-term investments. Lost my shirt by purchasing a house in 2005 and putting 20% into it. Haven't sold it, am renting it out covering my mortgage, taxes and insurance. That being said, what is killing me is the State and local taxes in both NY, Westchester and southern Connecticut. Heck, even Massachusetts is more business friendly.

 

So I would like to see if there was some way for the Feds to influence state tax levels and business laws. Probably can't happen given States rights, but larger companies can better navigate around these problems from it being easier to navigate geographic location to avoid many of these issues.

[loyal2dagame]

So, are you a business owner or do you have absolutely no desire to own a business? I know very few people that don't "want" to own a business. I do know very many that don't have the means to go out on their own (whether that being due to capital, desire, foresight, capability, personal situation, or a combination) but would like to.

 

no i am not a business owner, although i would like to be, but do not want to be at this time due to some of the reasons you listed in your reply.

[Chef Jim]

I don't recall the markets dropping this far, this fast, the last time. And that mess was exascerbated by 9/11.

 

Just imagine how bad it would be if, God forbid, another terror attack were to happen.

 

Ok, lets go back to my discussion with Deb. I was talking about the recovery from the tech bubble bursting. That was quite deep but over a much longer period of time. But the recovery was pretty rapid. As far as this one, talk to me in five years I'll let you know how the recovery was.

[Taro T]

Two thoughts as someone who is doing just that right now as a photographer. I agree with your analysis, but from a Fed tax side, this whole debate doesn't affect me much at my net revenue for my first year and probably won't for the next two years, after that maybe. I get my insurance through my wife and have long-term investments. Lost my shirt by purchasing a house in 2005 and putting 20% into it. Haven't sold it, am renting it out covering my mortgage, taxes and insurance. That being said, what is killing me is the State and local taxes in both NY, Westchester and southern Connecticut. Heck, even Massachusetts is more business friendly.

 

So I would like to see if there was some way for the Feds to influence state tax levels and business laws. Probably can't happen given States rights, but larger companies can better navigate around these problems from it being easier to navigate geographic location to avoid many of these issues.

Let me preface this comment by saying I am absolutely not in favor of this idea, but... One thing they could do, which likely in the long run would lead to less discrepancy in state/local taxes levies across states but in the short run would put a world of hurt on people like us living in high tax states, is to eliminate the deductibility of state / local taxes. They would have just made low tax states that much more attractive to do business in by doing that.

 

They also could probably force tax rates lower by withholding federal $'s for road improvements / other infrastructure similar to how they forced all the states to go to a 21 year old drinking age. (You can have whatever drinking age you want, but if you want all the money we were going to allot you, you'd better make sure that age is at least 21.)

 

I'm sure there are several tools available to them if they chose to do that, but I don't see what benefit a particular congresscritter would gain from it.

 

Personally, I'd prefer them to get out of the business of regulating things they are not Constitutionally mandated to regulate, taking less tax money in the 1st place and then letting individual states decide how (or whether) to provide those formerly federal services to their citizens. I don't see that one happening in my lifetime.

[Boomer860]

Dude I have started many businesses and none of them have failed. When you are in my income level there is very little risk. But I am really not a fair comparison.

 

The guy you describe has no guarantee that his income will go from 50k to 150k. It may go from 50k to 0k. He might risk trying for the 150k if he got to keep 125k but not risk if he knew he'd only keep 100k.

 

Most people that start their own businesses do not have multiple billions like me. If their income goes from 50k to 0k after trying something, they can't just walk down to the safe in the auxiliary Italian marble storage area, pop in the combo and grab a few 100k in case they need it for the weekend like me. They need to shelter their kids. They might be averse to risk and more taxes would make them even more averse.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama's plan because it keeps these peons out and allows me to make even more, but I'm just saying you are missing the point.

If you have billions maybe you should buy the Bills

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Let me preface this comment by saying I am absolutely not in favor of this idea, but... One thing they could do, which likely in the long run would lead to less discrepancy in state/local taxes levies across states but in the short run would put a world of hurt on people like us living in high tax states, is to eliminate the deductibility of state / local taxes. They would have just made low tax states that much more attractive to do business in by doing that.

 

They also could probably force tax rates lower by withholding federal $'s for road improvements / other infrastructure similar to how they forced all the states to go to a 21 year old drinking age. (You can have whatever drinking age you want, but if you want all the money we were going to allot you, you'd better make sure that age is at least 21.)

 

I'm sure there are several tools available to them if they chose to do that, but I don't see what benefit a particular congresscritter would gain from it.

 

Personally, I'd prefer them to get out of the business of regulating things they are not Constitutionally mandated to regulate, taking less tax money in the 1st place and then letting individual states decide how (or whether) to provide those formerly federal services to their citizens. I don't see that one happening in my lifetime.

When you say Constitutionally mandated to regulate what specifically do you mean, are you drawing a distinction between explicit and implicit Federal powers? Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is what I am referring to.

[Kelly the Dog]

I like what Michael Kinsley wrote this morning:

So let's see. According to John McCain,

 

1. The bad guys of the economic crisis are greedy bankers. They foisted homes and mortgages on innocent, unsuspecting middle Americans who couldn't afford them and (presumably) shouldn't have gotten them.

 

2. The Federal Government must buy up all these mortgages so that these people can stay in the houses they can't afford and shouldn't have gotten.

 

3. Why? Because home ownership is central to the American dream. Even Americans who can't afford a home should have one, and if they happen to get one, which they shouldn't, but might, thanks to unscrupulous bankers, the federal government should step in to make sure they don't lose it.

 

4. The crisis won't be resolved until house prices start rising again, thus making the American Dream unaffordable to more people.

[finknottle]

i'd have to disagree this this statement. if you are making 50k to 75k per year, and start a business making 150k or even 200k profit after expenses per year, how are you worse off due to higher taxes? further more, if you want to be a business owner, you will be. now whether the business grows or fails has little to do with taxes and everything to do with the owners decisions.

 

you have at least doubled or tripled your income and are now your own boss...........

 

simple math. the people who overthink it are the ones who have a problem with it.

 

Because you have to pony up your own money to play. Most businesses require some kind of up-front investment - at a minimum, you have to pay employees until money starts coming in, pay for a facility and supplies, advertising, etc.

 

Suppose you are making 50 to 75k per year, and have 500k in the bank. Would you spend that 500k starting a business (say, yet another restuarant) that had only a 25% chance of success? ANSWER: it would depend on the payoff if it were successfull. If the payoff was 1 million per year, then probably yes. If the payoff were 100k per year, then probably be no.

 

That's the part you all keep ignoring. Yes, you increase your money either way if it works. But when you stand to lose your savings taking a chance on a new business that, historically, is unlikely to succeed, you look at things quite differently. The lower the return, the less business sense it makes.