finknottle Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Yep. Entreprenureal spririt in this country died eons ago. Nobody would ever start a business under this tax code! C'mon buddy, give the American people a bit more credit. We're not ALL greedy! Not saying nobody would. But it is a simple logical consequence that when you lower the reward but keep the same risk, the package becomes less attractive. It's a simple mathematical calculation - the risk and the reward determines the expected return. If the expected return is lower, more people opt out of the risk of being an entrepenuer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I am not, just figured I would get a rise out both sides with my post. Seriously though, plumbers make a lot of cash and I agree that Obama set his figure too low for business owners. $1 million for net revenue would have been a better figure. I stated that I wasn't sure what should constitute a small business. Might be a good thread for discussion. I have no idea of the stats in this regard, what the distribution is and how many make what? The SBA has a definition and I presume lots of stats if you want to puruse their website. Don't really have the inclination to do so now. finknottle hits the nail on the head above though. What the 'tax the rich because I'm not one of them' crowd misses is that job grow and improved standard of living is primarily created by private investment in new businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 If you're making enough that you can buy your own company and still make more than $250k off of it, you're doing pretty good in these economic conditions. People did quite well under the tax rates during the Clinton years, which is what they'd go back to, and they'll do quite well again. It's time that those who don't make that much get a break after trickle down economics once again failed to deliver as promised. Those at the top did pretty good at preventing leaks so nothing trickled down to American workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 How can you not understand? It's the trickle up theory of economics. If you take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive, the unproductive will suddenly be more productive at being unproductive. Between this comment and the one that those who make more money are more productive is a not true comment in response both have some validity. The problem with welfare to an extent is that people do become lazy if they get money without doing any work, although some welfare cheats seem to put in a lot of effort! But at a certain point the law of diminishing returns apply and those making over a certain amount become less productive too. A smart politician should could someday work with some econometric models to target 95% of the highly productive middle for tax breaks and incentives while raising taxes on those that become less productive outside of this area. There would that suit everyone's Calvinistic tendencies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Not saying nobody would. But it is a simple logical consequence that when you lower the reward but keep the same risk, the package becomes less attractive. It's a simple mathematical calculation - the risk and the reward determines the expected return. If the expected return is lower, more people opt out of the risk of being an entrepenuer. My question- I suppose- would be: (and it's already been alluded to here)- how often does a "small" business gross over 250k right off the bat? How many FIRST TIME business owners project 250k in revenue in their first five years? I say- not many at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 The SBA has a definition and I presume lots of stats if you want to puruse their website. Don't really have the inclination to do so now. finknottle hits the nail on the head above though. What the 'tax the rich because I'm not one of them' crowd misses is that job grow and improved standard of living is primarily created by private investment in new businesses. I agree and understand what he says. I have stated in previous posts that is where Obama is making a miscalculation, but McCain has yet to accurately hone in on it with a targeted alternative. However, there is the indifference curve issue that as someone gets more of something, they are less likely to work for another of that something after a certain level of satiation and therefore their productivity for that activity will fall off: see my last post. There is a middle ground that neither side gets and ends with only half the apple as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 How can you not understand? It's the trickle up theory of economics. If you take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive, the unproductive will suddenly be more productive at being unproductive. I don't like taxes (since I'm in the top quintile like many of you tax cut mavens) and I'm not a socialist. But explain to me how the U.S. got to be the world's greatest nation before the Reagan tax cuts (and subsequent cuts under dubya)? You know, back in the 'good old days' when the top marginal tax rate was well north of 35%? The way some of you go on about wealth redistribution, the U.S. should have been a third world nation before 1980 since the productive "haves" were carrying all those unproductive middle and lower class "have nots." Ignoring the bottom half of the income base (as has been GB's policy over the last eight years) is shortsighted and will only lead to a more difficult day of reckoning down the road, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 If you're making enough that you can buy your own company and still make more than $250k off of it, you're doing pretty good in these economic conditions. People did quite well under the tax rates during the Clinton years, which is what they'd go back to, and they'll do quite well again. It's time that those who don't make that much get a break after trickle down economics once again failed to deliver as promised. Those at the top did pretty good at preventing leaks so nothing trickled down to American workers. They already get a break by paying a lot less in taxes as a percentage of their income. What's fair? When my net income is equal to theirs? And boy I sure yearn for those Clinton years when people were doing well and we had no "poor" people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I don't like taxes (since I'm in the top quintile like many of you tax cut mavens) and I'm not a socialist. But explain to me how the U.S. got to be the world's greatest nation before the Reagan tax cuts (and subsequent cuts under dubya)? You know, back in the 'good old days' when the top marginal tax rate was well north of 35%? The way some of you go on about wealth redistribution, the U.S. should have been a third world nation before 1980 since the productive "haves" were carrying all those unproductive middle and lower class "have nots." Ignoring the bottom half of the income base (as has been GB's policy over the last eight years) is shortsighted and will only lead to a more difficult day of reckoning down the road, IMO. Agreed. But having 40% of the people with no incentive to watch government spending is just as bad. Every American should pay taxes. I have heard no argument against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 If you're making enough that you can buy your own company and still make more than $250k off of it, you're doing pretty good in these economic conditions. People did quite well under the tax rates during the Clinton years, which is what they'd go back to, and they'll do quite well again. It's time that those who don't make that much get a break after trickle down economics once again failed to deliver as promised. Those at the top did pretty good at preventing leaks so nothing trickled down to American workers. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 No but it counts as important. Are things like McCain advisors having direct ties to Sadam, Palin breaking ethics laws, Bush appointing a copyright czar, and the Keating 5 less important? Why do you not discuss those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Agreed. But having 40% of the people with no incentive to watch government spending is just as bad. Every American should pay taxes. I have heard no argument against this. Everyone does pay taxes in some form--even the bottom two quintiles of the income strata. The urban legand that 45% of the country is getting a free ride is another conservative scare tactic, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted October 15, 2008 Author Share Posted October 15, 2008 Thread title: Obama wants to punish your success!Quote from Obama in first post: "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. How about this: It's not that I want to punish your success, but I'll do it anyway. It's not that I want to punish your success, but I have to. It's not that I want to punish your success, but where else do I get the money to give to someone else. It's not that I want to punish your success, but I can't punish the unsuccessful, they have no money. Either way, he's going to try to do it and like it when he does. If people don't really want to do something they won't. He does, and he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I don't like taxes (since I'm in the top quintile like many of you tax cut mavens) and I'm not a socialist. But explain to me how the U.S. got to be the world's greatest nation before the Reagan tax cuts (and subsequent cuts under dubya)? You know, back in the 'good old days' when the top marginal tax rate was well north of 35%? The way some of you go on about wealth redistribution, the U.S. should have been a third world nation before 1980 since the productive "haves" were carrying all those unproductive middle and lower class "have nots." Ignoring the bottom half of the income base (as has been GB's policy over the last eight years) is shortsighted and will only lead to a more difficult day of reckoning down the road, IMO. We bombed the crap out of everybody in WWII, and were one of the few undamaged countries left. We didn't have to spend most of our GDP rebuilding, or paying off loans to other countries. We entered the post-war period with unscathed companies and factories and railroads etc. We had tremendous natural resources. Who was going to compete with USA Inc? We had a free ride in the 50's and early 60's. Then it caught up with us and got ugly - go back and look at the markets in the 70's to see what happened when other countries recovered. Surely people from Buffalo remember what happened to the auto and steel industries back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Are things like McCain advisors having direct ties to Sadam, Palin breaking ethics laws, Bush appointing a copyright czar, and the Keating 5 less important? Why do you not discuss those? You brought it up, besides Obama is fraud and a communist.Guess you would rather have a spread the wealth communist than a true American hero McCain. The thing that I concern myself with is the Presidents chief duty , Commander in Chief, and at this Obama is clueless.I leave all that touchy feely stuff to the libbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 My question- I suppose- would be: (and it's already been alluded to here)- how often does a "small" business gross over 250k right off the bat? How many FIRST TIME business owners project 250k in revenue in their first five years? I say- not many at all What does it matter how soon the payoff is? If you are going to risk your money to start a business, you presumably are looking down the road and saying something like "I'll invest 300k of my money and every second of my time for 3 years on this 50-50 proposition, after which I'll either fail or I'll start earning 300k a year indefinately." Lower that to 200k and it's not as attractive. But for the record - and I think it is entirely irrelevant - you can make 250k right out of the gate. It depends on the business niche. Product startups look 3 years down the road, while consultancies usually get their biggest bang right away - it's usually years two and three when their ability to get new clients is tested. Boutique shops and restuarants fall into the latter catagory I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 The SBA has a definition and I presume lots of stats if you want to puruse their website. Don't really have the inclination to do so now. finknottle hits the nail on the head above though. What the 'tax the rich because I'm not one of them' crowd misses is that job grow and improved standard of living is primarily created by private investment in new businesses. It's defined by the number of employees--500 or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You brought it up, besides Obama is fraud and a communist.Guess you would rather have a spread the wealth communist than a true American hero McCain.The thing that I concern myself with is the Presidents chief duty , Commander in Chief, and at this Obama is clueless.I leave all that touchy feely stuff to the libbers. I didn't make this thread? And it is now obvious you have no clue what the President of the United States of America does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 We bombed the crap out of everybody in WWII, and were one of the few undamaged countries left. We didn't have to spend most of our GDP rebuilding, or paying off loans to other countries. We entered the post-war period with unscathed companies and factories and railroads etc. We had tremendous natural resources. Who was going to compete with USA Inc? We had a free ride in the 50's and early 60's. Then it caught up with us and got ugly - go back and look at the markets in the 70's to see what happened when other countries recovered. Surely people from Buffalo remember what happened to the auto and steel industries back then! Gee, so we've been on a downward spiral since the 1970s? I must have missed the 1980s and 1990s--when real GDP grew by 3.2% annually (welllllllll below the 4.0% rate from 1950 to 1969). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 The good business man will have less incentive to get ahead and will limit how much he grows. Or worse they will not split out and want to own their own business. It will become the united states of givernment corporations where the only ones who have money to reinvest in the company are those that get the official "Obama seal of approval" better know as a large donation to the communist party. These companies will prosper as all other small/medium businesses will be shut down, as the wealth is distributed among the masses. Damn it why should an apprentice plumber make less the the guy who went out invested his time, money and ideas to start the business. the apprentice has needs like his wekly stash, his nightly case of PBR, his xbox, and his gambling money just like the wealthy. Who are you to deny him his basic rights? Those businesses sure had "less incentive" to grow during the Clinton years, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts