An argument against Obama's tax plan

[Gan]

By: Grover G. Norquist
July 11, 2008 08:22 AM EST
The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, “Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.” While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

Let’s start with the definition of a “small business.” Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

So what do the data say?

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.


What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.

Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious.

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of "Leave Us Alone — Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0E92FEE0-3048-5C12-0002330C2A831238
__________________________________________________ __________

Keller, is Obama really proposing a new tax rate to S-Corp and other small business entities at 50%?!?

WTF?

I just set up Corp. (Inc.) this year with a designation as a small business (form 2553). Doubtful I'll cross the 250k mark for at least the first year or two - but damn, come on. Seriously?

This does not make me happy if I'm reading this correctly.

[Daniel]

This article is highly misleading with the conclusions it draws.

[Gan]

This article is highly misleading with the conclusions it draws.

As in...

[Daniel]

For starters: Implying that because all of the money for those who make over the cap would be taxed at the 50% tax rate. It doesn't tell us anything about how that 706 billion is distributed.

If the average income is 300k then it would only tax a small portion of that 760k vice if it was held by a few individuals (which would kinda be making the point that it's not necessarily small business anymore).

I also don't like the suggestion that an additional tax will cause businesses to stop expanding or operating. Especially when nothing is said about other related iniatives.

[Gan]

I also don't like the suggestion that an additional tax will cause businesses to stop expanding or operating. Especially when nothing is said about other related iniatives.
I dont know...

What would keep a business owner who had a business model that allowed him to achieve a 300k max income from scaling back to 249k in order to benefit at the lower rate? Providing the tax is assessed evenly.

50% of 300k > 35% of 249k

(150k > 87k)

Meaning gross profit after taxes of 150k vs. 162k (before overhead/expenditures).

Although that would apply more to the exception than the norm. I would just hate to be that exception. IMO



For starters: Implying that because all of the money for those who make over the cap would be taxed at the 50% tax rate. It doesn't tell us anything about how that 706 billion is distributed.

If the average income is 300k then it would only tax a small portion of that 760k vice if it was held by a few individuals (which would kinda be making the point that it's not necessarily small business anymore).

Agreed. The article is making the assumption that a majority of those with incomes greater than 250k are 'small businesses'. Which may or may not be the case.

[Keller]

Keller, is Obama really proposing a new tax rate to S-Corp and other small business entities at 50%?!?

WTF?

I just set up Corp. (Inc.) this year with a designation as a small business (form 2553). Doubtful I'll cross the 250k mark for at least the first year or two - but damn, come on. Seriously?

This does not make me happy if I'm reading this correctly.

I've not looked into it. Right now I spend 12-16 hrs a day learning "bar law" which isn't even "real law". What a fucking WASTE of time. Gimme 3 weeks and I'll look into and tell you what I think.

[Gan]

Your avatar is hillary-ous.

[crb]

I also don't like the suggestion that an additional tax will cause businesses to stop expanding or operating. Especially when nothing is said about other related iniatives.

Umm... thats basic economics. Businesses need money to expand, businesses have less money, businesses expand less.

This is also why Obama is an idiot with capital gains tax. Liberals see tax policy as a way to "fairly" redistribute wealth and he doesn't think it is "fair" that capital gains is 15%.

Capital gains is long term investment profits, and that involves risk, risk normal income doesn't have, but really, the argument for a low capital gains rate is this....

Business needs capital to expand, businesses need to expand to create more job openings. When people invest it is in businesses, so capital gains tax is a tax on business investment, and if business investment is what creates new jobs, then capital gains tax is a tax on job creation.

Additionally, when you raise the capital gains tax you get LESS tax revenue from it the next year. When you lower it, you get more. Thats a fact.

The other problem with raising it is that when it is raised you encourage people to sell all their investments prior to the deadline, whatever it is, so they can pay the existing lower rate. A big chunk of the stock market decline right now is already from speculation of Obama winning, ever since he started doing well it has been falling. Sure housing and everything else is a part of it, but when you poll nonpartisan people they will say uncertainty of capital gains is getting a lot of people to cash in their chips earlier, or creating worry among investors.

Having a low capital gains tax also encourages more saving & investing... which this country could stand to do more of anyways.

Now, balance all of that, against Obama's need for "fairness" and really, what is the big deal?

In my opinion, they should keep capital gains at 15% for people who make over 250k a year, lower it to 5% for people who make 50-250k a year, and make it 0% for people who make less than 50k a year. That would encourage the people who save the least to save more, and it would give our economy a big kick in the pants to get it going, while allowing politicians to claim it is a tax cut for the middle & lower class.

[Keller]

Additionally, when you raise the capital gains tax you get LESS tax revenue from it the next year. When you lower it, you get more. Thats a fact.


Presenting the Laffer curve as "fact" is fucking funny as shit. Seriously. Keep going.

Beyond any scientific complications involved in judging economic results when thousands of variables are constantly changing -- don't you think when there is a temporary reduction in the surcharge for ANY activity (in this case, the sale of capital assets) there will be a run on that activity?

[Keller]

The other problem with raising it is that when it is raised you encourage people to sell all their investments prior to the deadline, whatever it is, so they can pay the existing lower rate. A big chunk of the stock market decline right now is already from speculation of Obama winning, ever since he started doing well it has been falling. Sure housing and everything else is a part of it, but when you poll nonpartisan people they will say uncertainty of capital gains is getting a lot of people to cash in their chips earlier, or creating worry among investors.

Can you link the polls please?



In my opinion, they should keep capital gains at 15% for people who make over 250k a year, lower it to 5% for people who make 50-250k a year, and make it 0% for people who make less than 50k a year. That would encourage the people who save the least to save more, and it would give our economy a big kick in the pants to get it going, while allowing politicians to claim it is a tax cut for the middle & lower class.

Interesting proposal. I kinda like it, actually.

[Daniel]

I dont know...

What would keep a business owner who had a business model that allowed him to achieve a 300k max income from scaling back to 249k in order to benefit at the lower rate? Providing the tax is assessed evenly.

50% of 300k > 35% of 249k

(150k > 87k)

Meaning gross profit after taxes of 150k vs. 162k (before overhead/expenditures).

Although that would apply more to the exception than the norm. I would just hate to be that exception. IMO


Agreed. The article is making the assumption that a majority of those with incomes greater than 250k are 'small businesses'. Which may or may not be the case.

Do you know how taxes work?

I'm guessing not.

[Daniel]

A big chunk of the stock market decline right now is already from speculation of Obama winning, ever since he started doing well it has been falling.

Oh yea? So I'm guessing you can link to the numbers to show this correlation right?

I know you're a big math man.

[Parkbandit]

I can't speak for the entire stock market, but I've personally moved some things in anticipation of Obama winning.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in the country that has.

[crb]

Presenting the Laffer curve as "fact" is fucking funny as shit. Seriously. Keep going.

Beyond any scientific complications involved in judging economic results when thousands of variables are constantly changing -- don't you think when there is a temporary reduction in the surcharge for ANY activity (in this case, the sale of capital assets) there will be a run on that activity?
Fact. when clinton raised in receipts dropped.

Fact. when bush cut it receipts increased.

If your goal is to increase federal funding, raising the capital gains tax does not accomplish that. How is this bullshit? You can look it up.

[crb]

Can you link the polls please?




Interesting proposal. I kinda like it, actually.
Polls were done on TV on CNBC, so no, can't link to them.

I can resign myself to paying higher income tax if I must, but really, the capital gains tax is far too important, keeping it low is a great economic stimulus. If my income tax rate is raised by 5 or 10%, I'll pay 5 or 10% more. If Obama raises the capital gains tax it'll hurt the economy to such a degree that I could end up making 30% less through my businesses, which is far far far worse than a 10% increase in income tax.

Here are some things to read:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/3/31/obamas-capital-gains-blunder.html
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2008/07/mccain_obama_have_different_pl.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120735854234491599.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
http://www.newhouse.com/mccain,-obama-differ-on-plans-for-capital-gains-tax-2.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4337.html

[Daniel]

I didn't realize you = the economy.

[crb]

I just set up Corp. (Inc.) this year with a designation as a small business (form 2553). Doubtful I'll cross the 250k mark for at least the first year or two - but damn, come on. Seriously?

Here is the benefit Gan.... (in addition to the liability protection).

In an LLC or a sole proprietorship all of your business profits are considered your personal income and subject to medicare and social security taxes, both the employer and employee share, for the whole amount or to the maximum limit.

As an S-corp you instead pay yourself a salary, and send yourself a W2, and that income is taxed like normal wage income anyone else gets. The rest of your business profits are put on schedule C of your income tax return BUT they are not subject to FICA taxes.

Now, the rule is, you have to pay yourself atleast how much it would cost you to hire someone to do everything you do. If you're a consultant or other such professional this is harder to justify, but if your income comes from selling something (a physical product, or something like advertising space, etc, anything where income is not so directly tied to labor) it is fairly easy to justify yourself a wage much lower than the business income.

Personally I pay myself a salary of $6500 a month, and that is what I pay FICA taxes on, the business profits on top of that just get taxed at whatever my income tax rate is.

Consequently, half of my salary is withheld each month and sent to the IRS, whereas as an LLC I only had to pay quarterlies (which I still, also, have to pay for the business). And all told there is much more paperwork, but the savings on FICA taxes is worth it... especially if Obama increases the cap...... of course if he increases the cap and then changes how S-corps function so that we cannot do this, he's going to piss off every small business owner in America. Talk about discouraging small business, no excuse for taxing us so much.

And on the topic of bullshit taxes... Michigan has one of the worst, the Michigan Business tax, which believe it or not taxes gross revenue. Oh ya, gross revenue. So GM can lose a billion dollars and still pay hundreds of millions in taxes because they tax gross revenue, and they wonder why all the new auto plants are being built in the south.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't realize you = the economy.

Here, I'll bold the important part which you clearly got confused on:


I can't speak for the entire stock market, but I've personally moved some things in anticipation of Obama winning.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in the country that has.

Remember.. I don't blame you. Clearly you are just a victim. Obviously you were just pushed through school. Those damn white people!

[Keller]

Fact. when clinton raised in receipts dropped.

Fact. when bush cut it receipts increased.

If your goal is to increase federal funding, raising the capital gains tax does not accomplish that. How is this bullshit? You can look it up.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Without even bothering to look at the scholarship (which says the Laffer curve is a neat idea -- but completely unpredictable and not helpful) there are two irreparable problems with your proposition that lower LTCG rates create higher revenue.

First: One economic factor (here, lowered LTCG rates) cannot be analyzed in any scientific or predictable manner. The economy is highly dynamic and you can't change just one variable. It's plain stupid to say it's a fact that lowered LTCG rates created higher revenue. How does investing in the market create tax liability. It doesn't. Liquidating investment (with the obvious possibility of reinvesting) creates tax liability.

Second: Given the fact the liquidating investment creates tax liability and given the fact that the reduced LTCG rates are temporary, it's highly probable that the increased revenue is a result of individuals (temporarily alieved from the strong lock-in affect, which IS a valid criticism of CG taxes) availing themselves of the lowered rates.

[crb]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Without even bothering to look at the scholarship (which says the Laffer curve is a neat idea -- but completely unpredictable and not helpful) there are two irreparable problems with your proposition that lower LTCG rates create higher revenue.

First: One economic factor (here, lowered LTCG rates) cannot be analyzed in any scientific or predictable manner. The economy is highly dynamic and you can't change just one variable. It's plain stupid to say it's a fact that lowered LTCG rates created higher revenue. How does investing in the market create tax liability. It doesn't. Liquidating investment (with the obvious possibility of reinvesting) creates tax liability.

Second: Given the fact the liquidating investment creates tax liability and given the fact that the reduced LTCG rates are temporary, it's highly probable that the increased revenue is a result of individuals (temporarily alieved from the strong lock-in affect, which IS a valid criticism of CG taxes) availing themselves of the lowered rates.
I never said I was speaking long term. I was speaking short term.

Obviously, as you said, long term studies cannot really be done because of how dynamic the economy is.

Obama wants to increase federal spending, he proposes to do that with a tax increase, including a capital gains increase. The money he is expecting will not be there. (insert Warriorbird comment about saving money from the war to fund things here).

I know exactly why raising the rate causes revenue to drop, and lowering it causes it to rise, you don't need to explain it. But why it happens doesn't change that it does indeed happen.

[Keller]

I never said I was speaking long term. I was speaking short term.

Obviously, as you said, long term studies cannot really be done because of how dynamic the economy is.

Obama wants to increase federal spending, he proposes to do that with a tax increase, including a capital gains increase. The money he is expecting will not be there. (insert Warriorbird comment about saving money from the war to fund things here).

I know exactly why raising the rate causes revenue to drop, and lowering it causes it to rise, you don't need to explain it. But why it happens doesn't change that it does indeed happen.

ok. As long as you recognize it's not because lower CG rates create investment which in turn creates revenue -- which is what I took from your original post.

I'd personally like to see a complete overhaul of the corporate tax structure. Professionally, as I work in passthroughs tax, I'd like to keep the status quo -- our group doesn't mind the business.

[Daniel]

Here, I'll bold the important part which you clearly got confused on:



Remember.. I don't blame you. Clearly you are just a victim. Obviously you were just pushed through school. Those damn white people!

I wasn't talking to you.

Thanks though.

[Ignot]

Can we all agree that taxes (including cap gains) are going to go up regardless of who gets into office?

[Parkbandit]

I wasn't talking to you.

Thanks though.

L2quote next time.

[Daniel]

Take some responsibility for yourself.

[Parkbandit]

You are suck a dumb fuck.

[Daniel]

You are suck a dumb fuck.

What are you Jesse Jackson?

[Parkbandit]

What are you Jesse Jackson?

I wasn't talking to you.

Thanks though.

[Daniel]

okayy

[Keller]

I wasn't talking to you.

Thanks though.

I see what you did thur.

[Gan]

Do you know how taxes work?

I'm guessing not.

I'm just hypothesizing. (on a base level to make a point)

Feel free to jump in with some actual material. (read: actually contribute to the thread) (in other words: feel free to step up chump)

[Daniel]

I did.

I explained my position and you came back with some hockimaneyed analysis that doesn't even reflect the way the tax system works in America. I'm not really sure how I could possibly respond to that seriously.

FYI. You don't pay your tax bracket on all of your income. Only the amount of money you make within that bracket.

That would be retarded.

[Clove]

Businesses right on the line will expand their expenses. This could result in business expansion or benefit expansion in the short term, but ultimately it [taxes] is going to catch up with these businesses. Personally I believe 50% tax bracket would drive inflation and slow down the economy.

As Keller pointed out (and I find myself constantly reminding people) CG taxes only apply if you realize a gain. A higher gains tax could have the effect of pushing investors to hold onto their investments longer or at least looking for higher yields. In which case I would predict a continued trend of assets shifting to commodities and bonds.

[Clove]

I did.

I explained my position and you came back with some hockimaneyed analysis that doesn't even reflect the way the tax system works in America. I'm not really sure how I could possibly respond to that seriously.

FYI. You don't pay your tax bracket on all of your income. Only the amount of money you make within that bracket.

That would be retarded.Yes and businesses budget for taxes too, and they DO respond to brackets. At least in corporate taxes you can actually be profitable before taxes, but ultimately be in the red. It's why we use the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization line as a metric for corporate performance, because the activity prior to that is what a corporation genuinely controls.

[Daniel]

Yes and businesses budget for taxes too, and they DO respond to brackets. At least in corporate taxes you can actually be profitable before taxes, but ultimately be in the red. It's why we use the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization line as a metric for corporate performance, because the activity prior to that is what a corporation genuinely controls.

Yes.

[Gan]

I explained my position and you came back with some hockimaneyed analysis that doesn't even reflect the way the tax system works in America. I'm not really sure how I could possibly respond to that seriously.
I dont think you've ever responded to anyone seriously. Thats what makes you such an endearing asshole I suppose.


FYI. You don't pay your tax bracket on all of your income. Only the amount of money you make within that bracket.
Thanks! Thats all you had to say.

[Daniel]

I dont think you've ever responded to anyone seriously. Thats what makes you such an endearing asshole I suppose.

Thanks! Thats all you had to say.

You seem pretty indignant for a guy that goes out of his way to be a condescending prick when suggesting that other people don't understand "Basic" concepts.

It's not my job to make sure you understand the very very basics of a tax system and I'm not going to pretend like I have the desire to teach you.

You're still gonna sit here acting like that you're the absolute authority on life because you've had the distinction of holding down a job for the last decade and a half.

As it stands: I, for one, can't wait until you actually get out into the real world and start having to deal with taxes on your own.

That serious enough for you? ;)

[ClydeR]

Keller, is Obama really proposing a new tax rate to S-Corp and other small business entities at 50%?!?

I'll answer for my good friend Keller, since he's otherwise busy. The article identified three types of business organizations--sole proprietorships, S corporations and partnerships. The article clearly said that Obama's plan would tax sole proprietorships and partnerships, but not S corporations, at 50.3%.

The 50.3% figure is not precisely correct for two reasons that Keller would be able to think of if he had time. First, Grover Norquist adds the 12.4% self-employment tax to the pre-2001 top marginal income tax rate of 37.9%, but self-employment taxes are partially deductible from the income tax. After accounting for the deduction, the actual increase in the combined top tax rate would be less. Second, not all partnership income is subject to the self-employment tax. Norquist is partly right and partly wrong. His article is a good starting point for discussion.

[ClydeR]

For starters: Implying that because all of the money for those who make over the cap would be taxed at the 50% tax rate. It doesn't tell us anything about how that 706 billion is distributed.

If the average income is 300k then it would only tax a small portion of that 760k vice if it was held by a few individuals (which would kinda be making the point that it's not necessarily small business anymore).

I also don't like the suggestion that an additional tax will cause businesses to stop expanding or operating. Especially when nothing is said about other related iniatives.

The article said, "In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on."

Does "this income" equal 2/3rds of $706B, or does "this income" equal 2/3rds of 1/2 of $706B?

[Clove]

It equals 2/3rd of 353 billion.

[Gan]

You seem pretty indignant for a guy that goes out of his way to be a condescending prick when suggesting that other people don't understand "Basic" concepts.

It's not my job to make sure you understand the very very basics of a tax system and I'm not going to pretend like I have the desire to teach you.

You're still gonna sit here acting like that you're the absolute authority on life because you've had the distinction of holding down a job for the last decade and a half.

As it stands: I, for one, can't wait until you actually get out into the real world and start having to deal with taxes on your own.

That serious enough for you? ;)

LOL @ you lecturing me about life.

[Clove]

You're still gonna sit here acting like that you're the absolute authority on life because you've had the distinction of holding down a job for the last decade and a half.Yeah, c'mon that just makes you white!

[Daniel]

LOL @ you lecturing me about life.



Funny. That's my reaction whenever you try and do it on these boards ;)

[Gan]

Now that I have a moment to respond (meaning I'm done laughing)


You seem pretty indignant for a guy that goes out of his way to be a condescending prick when suggesting that other people don't understand "Basic" concepts.
Actually I'm quite civil. You on the other hand, with your one off shots and comments, give the impression usually that because either you're black, you were in the army, you hold down some uber leet errand boy job at the dept. of state, and that you make big bucks that you're all that. (Oh, and you grew up in Chicago, and your mom knows famous people.) If you even bothered to comprehend what you've read from my posts (present and historical) - you'll find that I only comment on things of which I have direct knowledge of. Evidence of this miscomprehension of yours is given in this thread as well considering you completely missed the reason why I made the thread and asked the questions. Last I checked, know it all's rarely ask direct and basic questions about something - they would rather tell someone. Your performance in this thread speaks more of the latter than the former. ;) It would humble you to consider that there are people out in the world that do have more life experience than you.


It's not my job to make sure you understand the very very basics of a tax system and I'm not going to pretend like I have the desire to teach you.
You werent asked to teach a tax class, you were asked to clarify a statement and provide input since you were so keen on critiquing a post you obvously misunderstood.

I've always been the first to admit that I have had little experience in taxes. Hence why this thread was started in the form of a question. Hence why it was directed to Keller - because he's one of the tax experts that post here. You on the otherhand took the thread as a political slight against Obama and jumped in with both feet defending your candidate. Do us all a favor and take off the blinders and put down the pompoms for a bit. For that miscomprehension I'll give you your obligitory 'whoooooooooosh!'.


You're still gonna sit here acting like that you're the absolute authority on life because you've had the distinction of holding down a job for the last decade and a half.
A job, a wife, a mortgage, a child, putting both myself and my wife through our undergrad degrees and now putting my wife through her nurse practicioners degree, oh and starting up my own business... And no, I dont pretend to be the absolute authority on life - that distinction you have obviously confused with Tsa'ah. I contribute to threads that deal with matters I'm familiar with, argue points which I feel I know enough about the topic thats being debated - and yield to those who have greater knowledge/experience than me as presented in those threads. My yielding to your government contract position in a previous thread should have been evidence enough to you directly - however, with those blinders on I can understand how you would have overlooked that. We know you're a pretty smart guy, why dont you act like it on a consistent basis?


As it stands: I, for one, can't wait until you actually get out into the real world and start having to deal with taxes on your own.
I have been doing my own personal and family taxes since 1989, and am now responsible for keeping the books on my e-business tyvm. In fact, in recognition of my lack of business tax model experience I'm looking into taking some tax courses that HR Block offers locally to small business owners.


That serious enough for you? ;)
Seriously laughable, thats about it.

[Daniel]

Now that I have a moment to respond (meaning I'm done laughing)


Actually I'm quite civil. You on the other hand, with your one off shots and comments, give the impression usually that because either you're black, you were in the army, you hold down some uber leet errand boy job at the dept. of state, and that you make big bucks that you're all that. (Oh, and you grew up in Chicago, and your mom knows famous people.) If you even bothered to comprehend what you've read from my posts (present and historical) - you'll find that I only comment on things of which I have direct knowledge of. Evidence of this miscomprehension of yours is given in this thread as well considering you completely missed the reason why I made the thread and asked the questions. Last I checked, know it all's rarely ask direct and basic questions about something - they would rather tell someone. Your performance in this thread speaks more of the latter than the former. ;) It would humble you to consider that there are people out in the world that do have more life experience than you.



Lol. I'm sorry Gan. I rarely if ever bring up personal things unless it's relevant to the conservation and more often than not, it's because you and PB go off on some "Oh you must not have a job, or you are irresponsible".

For the Record: I am all that.




You werent asked to teach a tax class, you were asked to clarify a statement and provide input since you were so keen on critiquing a post you obvously misunderstood.


You obviously missed the reference to the numerous times you've offered to "school" someone on a subject because they share a different view than you.




I've always been the first to admit that I have had little experience in taxes. Hence why this thread was started in the form of a question. Hence why it was directed to Keller - because he's one of the tax experts that post here. You on the otherhand took the thread as a political slight against Obama and jumped in with both feet defending your candidate. Do us all a favor and take off the blinders and put down the pompoms for a bit. For that miscomprehension I'll give you your obligitory 'whoooooooooosh!'.


It's funny you talk about blinders. Remind me again: where did I ever mention Obama, McCain or any other political party or candidate in this thread?

I'll give you a hint: I didn't. I'm more than willing to discuss the merits of different tax policies, but not when the topic of discussion is a misleading partisan hackjob that is attempting to spur emotions with misrepresented numbers and hyperbole. In short: The article is bullshit, even ClydeR saw it and that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.




A job, a wife, a mortgage, a child, putting both myself and my wife through our undergrad degrees and now putting my wife through her nurse practicioners degree, oh and starting up my own business... And no, I dont pretend to be the absolute authority on life - that distinction you have obviously confused with Tsa'ah. I contribute to threads that deal with matters I'm familiar with, argue points which I feel I know enough about the topic thats being debated - and yield to those who have greater knowledge/experience than me as presented in those threads.


Thanks for the life story, but obviously you think you're all that.




My yielding to your government contract position in a previous thread should have been evidence enough to you directly - however, with those blinders on I can understand how you would have overlooked that.

I'll conceede this point but call you with the fact that you effectively stopped the conversation at that point and didn't bother continuing with the logical train of thought. I'll then raise you all the other times you've said some dumb shit to TheE or other people like "I can't wait until you get out into the real world and you'll see how ridiculous being a liberal is".


We know you're a pretty smart guy, why dont you act like it on a consistent basis?

Do you honestly need me to answer this question? What passes for discourse on these boards is a joke.

I'll be fair, when you aren't being a pompous republican douche bag half the time, you're probably one of the more reasonable and level headed posters on this forum. I respect that. In fact, I had been planning on coming down to Houstan sometime in the next few months and had intended to offer to buy you a beer.

However, the rest of the time you have ParkBandit trolling around like he lost his meds\sanity in 1967 or CRB saying shit like the economy is in the tank because Obama has a shot of winning the election. Trying to have a productive discussion on these boards is like trying to get off by stabbing myself in the dick.

[crb]

However, the rest of the time you have ParkBandit trolling around like he lost his meds\sanity in 1967 or CRB saying shit like the economy is in the tank because Obama has a shot of winning the election. Trying to have a productive discussion on these boards is like trying to get off by stabbing myself in the dick.

Not the economy, the stock market. Learn 2 read.

Obama has a good chance of winning, he is in the lead. He wants to raise the capital gains tax. When capital gains taxes are raising people sell positions to realize gains prior to the deadline for the tax to go up. This causes disproportionate selling in relation to buying and when you have more buyers than sellers prices are going down. Just because you don't follow financial news doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I happen to watch CNBC more or less all day, and read financial magazines, and otherwise keep up on things, and the spectre of higher capital gains under Obama has been mentioned numerous times from varying sources as a source of uncertainty driving the market lower. The only source of uncertainty? No, but certainly a source.

And I also fully believe that Obama is going to be bad for the economy, raising taxes on job providers isn't how you increase jobs.

[Stanley Burrell]

Not the economy, the stock market. Learn 2 read.

Obama has a good chance of winning, he is in the lead. He wants to raise the capital gains tax. When capital gains taxes are raising people sell positions to realize gains prior to the deadline for the tax to go up. This causes disproportionate selling in relation to buying and when you have more buyers than sellers prices are going down. Just because you don't follow financial news doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I happen to watch CNBC more or less all day, and read financial magazines, and otherwise keep up on things, and the spectre of higher capital gains under Obama has been mentioned numerous times from varying sources as a source of uncertainty driving the market lower. The only source of uncertainty? No, but certainly a source.

And I also fully believe that Obama is going to be bad for the economy, raising taxes on job providers isn't how you increase jobs.

I don't watch CNBC, CSPAN or a lot of television in general, or even know that much about economics, at all, but I'm pretty sure that we had a president; right before our current C.E.O., who had a bit of a better surplus situation that coincided with more tightly-monitored observation of business executives?

Like I said though, I'm not too sharp on economics: So if I were to say this war is probably costing us a fortune and Bush II is trying to preserve his shattered legacy by making sure a tax hike falls on the lap of our next Oval Office inhabitant is probably just a baseless assumption.

[Gan]

Lol. I'm sorry Gan. I rarely if ever bring up personal things unless it's relevant to the conservation and more often than not, it's because you and PB go off on some "Oh you must not have a job, or you are irresponsible".
Show me where I've gone with that rant where it wasnt deserved? Yea, thought so.


For the Record: I am all that.
LOL - nice to know someone thinks so.



You obviously missed the reference to the numerous times you've offered to "school" someone on a subject because they share a different view than you.
Like you've never talked trash before - regardless if the target warranted it or not. If you find discussions here unproductive - why is this an issue with you to begin with?



It's funny you talk about blinders. Remind me again: where did I ever mention Obama, McCain or any other political party or candidate in this thread?
Because thats what it seemed to be based on the tone of you posts. Excuse me if I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since that was the only logical explanation of your shitty repsonse.



I'll give you a hint: I didn't. I'm more than willing to discuss the merits of different tax policies, but not when the topic of discussion is a misleading partisan hackjob that is attempting to spur emotions with misrepresented numbers and hyperbole. In short: The article is bullshit, even ClydeR saw it and that has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
So you refute that I say you're being Obamablinded by saying you didnt mention him at all (regardless of your posting style here (ie: defensive)) and now you admit that you saw the article as a political hack job against who??? Thats right - Obama. Contradict yourself much? Hack job or no - I posted it here for clarification from the resident tax experts. Obviously that was not you - else my questions would have been directed to you. Thanks for trolling. :)





Thanks for the life story, but obviously you think you're all that.
Some people dont need to brag to overcompensate for their shortcomings... I merely defended that I am capable of walking the talk. I've never said I'm all that - nor will I.




I'll conceede this point but call you with the fact that you effectively stopped the conversation at that point and didn't bother continuing with the logical train of thought. I'll then raise you all the other times you've said some dumb shit to TheE or other people like "I can't wait until you get out into the real world and you'll see how ridiculous being a liberal is".
LOL - the great defender of TheE comes forth! Whence I conceeded the point - there was nothing left to argue - so I didnt. Imagine the concept of shutting up (something you should consider from time to time).



Do you honestly need me to answer this question? What passes for discourse on these boards is a joke.
Your participation included right? :lol:


I'll be fair, when you aren't being a pompous republican douche bag half the time, you're probably one of the more reasonable and level headed posters on this forum. I respect that. In fact, I had been planning on coming down to Houstan sometime in the next few months and had intended to offer to buy you a beer.
Yes, I like taking pot shots at bleeding heart liberals. Yes, I tend to be Republican slanted - but I do have my own agenda (not the GOP's). Every opportunity I get to try and poke holes into Obama's platform I'm going to. I need to know without a doubt that he's not worthy of my vote. I'm still not sold on who would be better for the country as president... that means I could vote for Obama - but a lot of variables need to be decided (like running mate for instance). But when Obama fans defend critique with rhetoric instead of rational thought then it just puts an even larger question mark on the candidate - IMO. You're not helping me decide for Obama in as much as you are pushing me back to McCain (whom I'm not sold on). And I dont believe this is the first thread where you've decided to troll or oneshot posts instead of contribute do the discussion. Great job!


However, the rest of the time you have ParkBandit trolling around like he lost his meds\sanity in 1967 or CRB saying shit like the economy is in the tank because Obama has a shot of winning the election. Trying to have a productive discussion on these boards is like trying to get off by stabbing myself in the dick.
Then leave the discussions to those who are smart enough to sort the wheat from the chaff. kthx

[Daniel]

Like you've never talked trash before - regardless if the target warranted it or not. If you find discussions here unproductive - why is this an issue with you to begin with?

Let's not be silly here.



Because thats what it seemed to be based on the tone of you posts. Excuse me if I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since that was the only logical explanation of your shitty repsonse.


So you refute that I say you're being Obamablinded by saying you didnt mention him at all (regardless of your posting style here (ie: defensive)) and now you admit that you saw the article as a political hack job against who??? Thats right - Obama. Contradict yourself much? Hack job or no - I posted it here for clarification from the resident tax experts. Obviously that was not you - else my questions would have been directed to you. Thanks for trolling. :)


Your conclusions are not logical sorry. I specifically mentioned the flawed substance of the article in my initial and subsequently following posts. My objections had absolutely nothing to do with Obama and the relative benefits\weaknesses of his proposal but rather the misleading conclusions and spurious facts presented in the article.

As I said, if you want to discuss those things fine. However, there is no sense in using a bullshit article as your basis.



LOL - the great defender of TheE comes forth! Whence I conceeded the point - there was nothing left to argue - so I didnt. Imagine the concept of shutting up (something you should consider from time to time).

You mean nothing besides the topic at hand?



Your participation included right? :lol:


Obviously. I've never held myself up to some professional standard on these boards, nor do I take myself seriously in this regard. Look no further than my avatar for proof.



Yes, I like taking pot shots at bleeding heart liberals. Yes, I tend to be Republican slanted - but I do have my own agenda (not the GOP's). Every opportunity I get to try and poke holes into Obama's platform I'm going to. I need to know without a doubt that he's not worthy of my vote. I'm still not sold on who would be better for the country as president... that means I could vote for Obama - but a lot of variables need to be decided (like running mate for instance). But when Obama fans defend critique with rhetoric instead of rational thought then it just puts an even larger question mark on the candidate - IMO. You're not helping me decide for Obama in as much as you are pushing me back to McCain (whom I'm not sold on). And I dont believe this is the first thread where you've decided to troll or oneshot posts instead of contribute do the discussion. Great job!


Once again, I've never said anything about Obama's platform in this thread. There was no "critique" presented. There was hyperbole interjected over bullshit representations of non fact. Nothing I have said in this thread is "rhetoric". In fact, I've said nothing but pretty straightforward facts about our tax system.



Then leave the discussions to those who are smart enough to sort the wheat from the chaff. kthx

Why would I do that? You obviously aren't doing a very good job.

[Daniel]

P.s. Is that a no to the beer?

[ClydeR]

I don't watch CNBC, CSPAN or a lot of television in general, or even know that much about economics, at all, but I'm pretty sure that we had a president; right before our current C.E.O., who had a bit of a better surplus situation that coincided with more tightly-monitored observation of business executives?

Most of our economic problems today are Bill Clinton's fault. It takes several years for fiscal changes to percolate through the economy to the extent that they are felt by the average consumer, which is where we are today. A few years from now, because of Bush's tax policies, we will have the George Bush economic boom! Then we'll have to lower taxes again to get rid of the big budget surpluses with nothing to spend them on. Besides that, nobody wants to go back to the time when we had a dishonest president who lied under oath about cheating on his wife.

[Ashliana]

Most of our economic problems today are Bill Clinton's fault. It takes several years for fiscal changes to percolate through the economy to the extent that they are felt by the average consumer, which is where we are today. A few years from now, because of Bush's tax policies, we will have the George Bush economic boom! Then we'll have to lower taxes again to get rid of the big budget surpluses with nothing to spend them on. Besides that, nobody wants to go back to the time when we had a dishonest president who lied under oath about cheating on his wife.

You're right! Bush's massive government borrowing, and thereby massively devaluing the dollar, had absolutely nothing to do with affecting the current oil prices which are causing the economy's growth to grind to a halt.

Of course! It was all Bill Clinton's fault, with his rampant economic frivolousness which caused our dollar to plunge, and had nothing to do with the Republican controlled congress up till 2006 or Bush's two terms.

And lying about another woman going down on you? Oh, totally awful. Especially compared to leading a country to war on false pretenses, firing scores of federal prosecutors for political reasons, and orchestrating the outing of a politically inconvenient CIA agent.

[CrystalTears]

Lying under oath. As a lawyer, he should have known better. And that's the only swing I'm going to take on that dead horse.

[Clove]

You're right! Bush's massive government borrowing, and thereby massively devaluing the dollar, had absolutely nothing to do with affecting the current oil prices which are causing the economy's growth to grind to a halt.I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. The emergence of the EU has a great deal to do with the declining value of the dollar which is now split about 60/40 with the Euro in world reserves, and will likely to continue to be.

Yes I know the EU was established in the 90's, but the Euro didn't see widespread use until 2002.

[Ashliana]

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. The emergence of the EU has a great deal to do with the declining value of the dollar which is now split about 60/40 with the Euro in world reserves, and will likely to continue to be.

Yes I know the EU was established in the 90's, but the Euro didn't see widespread use until 2002.

No, Clove. You don't understand. It's all Bill Clinton's fault. How dare you display any sort of independent thought? Jackass.

[ClydeR]

Lying under oath. As a lawyer, he should have known better. And that's the only swing I'm going to take on that dead horse.

You are right that Clinton's felonious misbehavior in office is now a dead horse. But history has a way of repeating itself, or at least rhyming with itself. When I reflect on Clinton's biggest scandal and then consider the 2008 crop of candidates, I conclude that Obama is the candidate most likely to repeat Clinton's sin.

Obama is young and, by some estimates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_girl), attractive. He will have more opportunities to stray into marital infidelity than either McCain or Chuck Baldwin (http://baldwin08.com/Chuck-Baldwin.cfm), neither of whom is likely to face that particular temptation. Besides, McCain has already tasted the forbidden fruit (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964198/posts) and worked that out of his system.

[CrystalTears]

If Obama is going to get a hummer in the Oval Office, I think he's going to do it with a lot more style... and with someone with a lot more looks and taste.

[Clove]

McCain is all about the hotties.

[Tisket]

I think Michelle seems like she'd be much more likely to go after Obama with a razor blade. Hilary played the stoic pretty good.

[Daniel]

If none of you ever listen to me, hear this: Don't fuck with black bitches. That shit is like tempting fate.

[TheWitch]

You are right that Clinton's felonious misbehavior in office is now a dead horse. But history has a way of repeating itself, or at least rhyming with itself. When I reflect on Clinton's biggest scandal and then consider the 2008 crop of candidates, I conclude that Obama is the candidate most likely to repeat Clinton's sin.

Obama is young and, by some estimates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_girl), attractive. He will have more opportunities to stray into marital infidelity than either McCain or Chuck Baldwin (http://baldwin08.com/Chuck-Baldwin.cfm), neither of whom is likely to face that particular temptation. Besides, McCain has already tasted the forbidden fruit (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964198/posts) and worked that out of his system.

Yes, because keeping it in ones pants = having some vague clue how to run a country.

Stop being obsessed with sex, you'll see things more for what they really are.

I know one thing, and this will be very, very simplisitc because this is not a thesis paper:

My families' income, and hence ability to improve our situation, grows less quickly than the cost of living and at the root of that cost of living is taxes - federal, state, local, property, sales on every damn thing, etc.

I'm sure I'm not the only one experiencing this.

The middle class is getting squeezed, and that isn't going to stop anytime soon. Much to the extreme harm of the country as a whole.

I anticipate getting squeezed even harder, no matter who takes office next January. I anticipate getting squeezed like a goddamn bug if it's Obama, maybe just a loaf of bread if it's McCain. In the lesser of evils, McCain gets my vote.

[ClydeR]

I anticipate getting squeezed even harder, no matter who takes office next January. I anticipate getting squeezed like a CENSORED bug if it's Obama, maybe just a loaf of bread if it's McCain. In the lesser of evils, McCain gets my vote.

I don't suppose you have any basis for that conclusion?

[Gan]

P.s. Is that a no to the beer?

At least you're perceptive.

[crb]

Most of our economic problems today are Bill Clinton's fault. It takes several years for fiscal changes to percolate through the economy to the extent that they are felt by the average consumer, which is where we are today. A few years from now, because of Bush's tax policies, we will have the George Bush economic boom! Then we'll have to lower taxes again to get rid of the big budget surpluses with nothing to spend them on. Besides that, nobody wants to go back to the time when we had a dishonest president who lied under oath about cheating on his wife.
I actually think much of it is Alan Greenspan's fault, keeping rates too low for too long after 9/11 fueled the housing boom. He created the same irrational exuberance in housing that he detested in technology. Likewise Bernanke moved too slowly in lowering rates back last summer and fall.

Though you CAN lay some blame at Clinton's feet, it was his administration that really started to push bankers to lend more to subprime borrowers, poorer borrowers, etc. Which of course leads to higher foreclosures, which is our problem now.

We we bought our house one of the mortage officers at the bank we talked to mentioned that it was actually illegal for them to consider income in their approval process, so long as our credit score was good enough and we said we could afford it (how dumb is that?).

Now the housing bill has new regulations (and millions and millions of pork, but that is another thread) saying banks need to verify subprime borrower income and make sure they can financially afford to pay back the loan. I'm sure in 10 more years another lot of politicians will then want to repeal that to make banks put more subprime borrowers, poorer people, etc, into homes, and the cycle repeats.

[Daniel]

At least you're perceptive.

Sadface

[BigWorm]

Yes, because keeping it in ones pants = having some vague clue how to run a country.

Stop being obsessed with sex, you'll see things more for what they really are.

I know one thing, and this will be very, very simplisitc because this is not a thesis paper:

My families' income, and hence ability to improve our situation, grows less quickly than the cost of living and at the root of that cost of living is taxes - federal, state, local, property, sales on every damn thing, etc.

I'm sure I'm not the only one experiencing this.

The middle class is getting squeezed, and that isn't going to stop anytime soon. Much to the extreme harm of the country as a whole.

I anticipate getting squeezed even harder, no matter who takes office next January. I anticipate getting squeezed like a goddamn bug if it's Obama, maybe just a loaf of bread if it's McCain. In the lesser of evils, McCain gets my vote.

Thanks Lou Dobbs.

[TheWitch]

I don't suppose you have any basis for that conclusion?

First, you being the person to question that conclusion comes right out of left field, given that A. I stated I was voting for McCain, and B. You really don't seem to require evidence for anything beyond the existance of God.

However, since you seem to backhandedly want me to further support your position by cheerleading for McCain, let me assure you it won't happen.

In reality, I made the cookie recipes that Obama and McCain's wives submitted to Family Circle magazine and the shortbreads with lemon and lime zest that Obama's wife submitted were dry pieces of shoe leather. McCain's wife's cookies were butterscotch oatmeal. Yummy!

Good cookie = my vote at this point.

And who the hell is Lou Dobbs?

<Googling>

Oh, that's Lou Dobbs. Okay, you're welcome.

[ClydeR]

However, since you seem to backhandedly want me to further support your position by cheerleading for McCain, let me assure you it won't happen.

I'm not a big McCain supporter. Although I reserve the right to change my mind, I presently plan to vote for Chuck Baldwin (http://www.baldwin08.com/), the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) candidate. I've tried to study McCain's positions, but it seems like he is either a recent convert or someone who is willing to say anything. I have to wonder if he will honor any of his stated positions if he wins. Also, I really think Cindy McCain would be a terrible first lady.

I'm sure Chuck Baldwin will do exactly what he says he will do. And I fear that Obama will do exactly what he says he will do.

[ClydeR]

First, you being the person to question that conclusion comes right out of left field, given that A. I stated I was voting for McCain, and B. You really don't seem to require evidence for anything beyond the existance of God.

However, since you seem to backhandedly want me to further support your position by cheerleading for McCain, let me assure you it won't happen.

I got in such a hurry that I forgot to address the tax issue in my earlier response. I think you might not have full information about McCain's and Obama's plans. If you really want to know, then you can look to this summary example (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/20/3754964.html) and these detailed examples (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/candidatesamplefamilies.cfm) for nonelderly unmarried, nonelderly married and elderly people.

[TheWitch]

I got in such a hurry that I forgot to address the tax issue in my earlier response. I think you might not have full information about McCain's and Obama's plans. If you really want to know, then you can look to this summary example (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/20/3754964.html) and these detailed examples (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/candidatesamplefamilies.cfm) for nonelderly unmarried, nonelderly married and elderly people.


I'm aware of this rhetoric. There are other sources that will state practically the opposite, one of which I just read the other day and will link later if I can find it again.

What I'm also aware of is the fact that there are spending plans present with both candidates that make those outlined scenarios somewhat of a pipe dream since they don't seem particularily specific about funding sources.

The bottom line is, I don't trust either one of them any farther than I could throw them. Their stories change daily, I don't see a consistency from either of them that makes me think, now there's a guy with a plan.

Ultimately, I lean right and so does McCain. Plus, them's good cookies.

[CrystalTears]

Dude, quit arguing with the bot. ;)

[ClydeR]

I'm aware of this rhetoric. There are other sources that will state practically the opposite, one of which I just read the other day and will link later if I can find it again.

Thank you. I promise to read the link when you post it.

[TheWitch]

Dude, quit arguing with the bot. ;)

Dude, my vote will be cast based on chewy butterscotchy goodness.

I have no high horse upon which to ride. :wink1: