Danger from within?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Many can handle having a marriage,kids and a business. It is not unique

Perhaps a handful, but most small business owners I have known and worked with put in over 40 hours a week, especially when they are starting the business. An hour at work is an hour away from the family and/or church. Many people choose family or choose church over career. Some people actually go to college so that they can do exactly that.

You are right,it takes more than 40 hours a week.Some make the choice to prioritize.Finding they can be attentice parents,attend chruch regularly,taking the family camping,playing ball in the back yard and all those activities important to your family.

There will always be those that use that as an excuse to take from others,feeling very righteous in their poverty.

In the end I will still not take from others what I can do for myself.Nor is there regret because my husband went into business for himself.

Now that our boys are from 36-49,what they tell us was important to them growing up far outweighs anything you could say.They speak from the experience of growing up with a self employed father.You do not.

[bonnie]

We are in serious trouble in this country. The serious trouble

is debt and a president that hasn't a clue.

The takers are getting more and the givers are less and less in numbers.

There is no way to escape the "trickle down" of increased taxes.

Those hurt will be those you wring your hands over and those relied on to provide work.

My husband increased his price as far as possible when his increased. When paint went up,so the cost to the homeowner.

Employee's were cut when the price could not be absorbed by the homeowner.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

...Actually, there is enough money among the rich to completely satisfy the entire national debt.

Total privately held wealth is approximately $60 trillion. 35% of that, $21 trillion is in the hands of the top 1% (the super rich upper class). More than 85%, $51 trillion, is in the hands of the top 25% (the millionaires and billionaires of the US).

.... There is more than enough money in the resources of the rich in the US to pay off our national debt.

Who among the rich or the non-rich has a responsibility to give their own money to the government in order to get it out of the mess that the government itself made?

The government would almost certainly go right back to making the same mistakes and getting us into debt. The Federal government has not shown any ability to discipline itself and clean their own house and stop waisting the citizen's money.

Post 27,000.

For the umpteenth time, read the whole post to which you are reacting. Context is important.

My observation was in response to the "don't-pick-on-the-rich" fallacy expressed by Bonnie that the rich do not have enough money to solve the debt crisis. I was not advocating that we take all their money or that they should give it all up voluntarily.

As Shane has repeatedly pointed out, the rich do have a greater responsibility and should help shoulder a greater share than they are now. Why? Just as Shane just pointed out, they did not get rich all by themselves by just their own blood, sweat and tears. They required the help of many poor working folk doing the grunt work. They also were greatly advantaged to get rich in this business friendly and infrastructure rich country. And that latter part was enabled by being a very tax friendly environment for capitalistic ventures. A very large share of the accumulated wealth in this country is the result of tremendous tax savings available to the rich. But tax savings to taxpayers on the other side of the ledger means reduced tax revenue to the government which contributes to the deficit and debt.

How big a deal were the Bush era tax cuts? Most unbiased sources indicate that they added about $2.5 trillion to our national debt and if continued for the next 10 years will add another $3.5 trillion to our national debt. (Realize that the cost of the wars could have been paid for by that lost revenue.) There never was any truth to the Laffer curve or supply side economics.

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics , and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts#cite_note-21

[bonnie]

For the umpteenth time, read the whole post to which you are reacting. Context is important.

My observation was in response to the "don't-pick-on-the-rich" fallacy expressed by Bonnie that the rich do not have enough money to solve the debt crisis. I was not advocating that we take all their money or that they should give it all up voluntarily.

There is not enough money.When you take in 1.00 and spend 1.56

it is a losing propostion.When nothing is done as to how the money is spent this isn't going to do anything except add a little more to the government slush fund.

And it is not the truly rich that will pay.It is the small business owners and any couple that makes 200,000.00 a year

In Obama's world they are the ones that have private corporate jets.The truly rich can do so with ease and have options to get out of a lot of it.Small business cannot do that.

When you add more burden to the small business they pass as much as they can to the consumer.Portions of those consumers are the ones that so many whine about and pretend to care.Just as the joke of Obamacare was to help the sacred poor.

That is horse puckey.It is once again going to hit the working middle class and the lower middle class

It is such a great plan many have been exempt from implemwenting Obamacare

[bonnie]

As Shane has repeatedly pointed out, the rich do have a greater responsibility and should help shoulder a greater share than they are now.

[Jeannieb43]

With all due respect, Bonnie, your viewpoint as a small business owner is not the same as a truly wealthy businessman who earns millions of dollars every month. It's those really wealthy ones who should have their marginal tax rate increased, not those of us who labor for a few thousand dollars a year.

Ninety percent of the population will have no increase in their taxes under Obama's plan; in fact, most of us will see our taxes reduced. But those who own their own yachts and airplanes and run Fortune 500 businesses should return to paying their fair share, back to the tax rate they paid under Clinton. It just isn't fair to steal from the middle class's Social Security and Medicare benefits in order to pander to the obscenely rich.

[bonnie]

With all due respect, Bonnie, your viewpoint as a small business owner is not the same as a truly wealthy businessman who earns millions of dollars every month. It's those really wealthy ones who should have their marginal tax rate increased, not those of us who labor for a few thousand dollars a year.

Ninety percent of the population will have no increase in their taxes under Obama's plan; in fact, most of us will see our taxes reduced. But those who own their own yachts and airplanes and run Fortune 500 businesses should return to paying their fair share, back to the tax rate they paid under Clinton. It just isn't fair to steal from the middle class's Social Security and Medicare benefits in order to pander to the obscenely rich.

With all due respect Jeannie,keep in mind the obscenely rich are not the only target.Unless you believe 200,000.00 obscenely rich.Small business will be hard hit by Obamacare alone or they will pay the fine and dump employee's on the government.

Or as some have started to do around here,hire a few more employee's and cut everyone back to thirty hours a week or less. Or with Obama's silly corporate jet tax they will do same as with the luxury yacht tax. That cost thousands of jobs for the ones everyone wrings their hands over.Brought that industry to a stand still.

The rich are not stealing anyone's SS and Medicare.Government overspending is

[olger]

With all due respect until it is demonstrated, one forgets the difference that lies between employeeship and entrepreneurship. There is much more that unites Bonnie with the president of Milmar Century Corp, than liberal white-collar workmen from California.

press on and look up,

`oG

[bonnie]

When you hit the businessman with more expense who do you think ends up paying?

When my husbands cost went up,the expense of the homeowner went up.

When fuel prices go up my one brother passes that on or when he can't he parks his truck.Waits till a client comes along that will pay the increase.

When the economy tanked and my other brother who has a extremely successful business had his accountant run the figures.What Obamacare and probable increase of taxes would mean to him. He could not pass on the many additional thousands of dollars a month so he shut it down. That hurt 50 families in a very bad economy.

Those are some of the businesses that will be hurt and in turn hurt the scared poor.

Generally those that live below the poverty level could do much to help themselves,a lot more than hiking taxes will do.

[bonnie]

I have a home based business that has succeeded beyond my expectations. I don't have to worry about additional tax at this time but I am on the receiving end of ever increasing cost.I have no intention of absorbing that.

I deal with a great deal of fabric,this has gone up a 1.00 per yard along with other costs to me that have gone up.

Those that are the ones that pay my increased cost are young families with small children.

Within the last year it has gone up 2.00 per item. If I ended up having to pay more tax it will again be passed on.

Who gets hurt?

[olger]

exactly, Bonnie

[Dr. Shane]

How big a deal were the Bush era tax cuts? Most unbiased sources indicate that they added about $2.5 trillion to our national debt

There is a lot of SPIN on the Bush tax cuts. It is hard to really know their net effect on revenues. The Bush tax cuts did turn around an economy that went into recession just as he was taking office. The 2001 recession caused massive revenue loss. The 9/11 attacks delayed the recovery. So all the loss in revenue cannot be pinned on the tax cuts. Some conservative economists actually believe that without the tax cuts there would have been a greater loss in revenue due to a deeper and longer recession. If we are honest about it, we have to admit that we will never know. The tax cuts were suppose to expire at a time when everyone believed the economy would be stronger.

Let's remember, the Bush tax cuts increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. So when they do expire, everyone with children will be paying $500/child more in taxes at the end of the year. Or getting back that much less of a refund. Those tax cuts were not just for the rich. We all benefited in more ways than one.

[Dr. Shane]

Ninety percent of the population will have no increase in their taxes under Obama's plan

That is one of the reasons why Obama's plan is a joke. Raising taxes 3% on the richest Americans will not put a dent in our deficit. And what happens if it results in a negative impact on the economy as it could? Revenues could actually decrease. A lot of people paying 35% will bring in more than a few people paying in 38%.

Do the math. The economy is growing at under 2% each year. Federal spending is scheduled to grow at 7.5%.

[Dr. Shane]

When you hit the businessman with more expense who do you think ends up paying?

The consumer pays. That is why it is so foolish to say the poor do not pay taxes. If they buy products or services produced by companies, they pay taxes.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, but most of the spin is from the right. And what you posted is one example of right-wing spin - "Well, it would have been even worse without them...." The sources I referred to were non-partisan economists and from the CBO.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Jeannieb43

Ninety percent of the population will have no increase in their taxes under Obama's plan

That is one of the reasons why Obama's plan is a joke. Raising taxes 3% on the richest Americans will not put a dent in our deficit. And what happens if it results in a negative impact on the economy as it could? Revenues could actually decrease. A lot of people paying 35% will bring in more than a few people paying in 38%.

Do the math. The economy is growing at under 2% each year. Federal spending is scheduled to grow at 7.5%.

I did the math. I already posted it. $3.5 trillion more in revenue over 10 years by reversing the Bush tax cuts, moving the highest marginal rate from 35% to 38%.

[Dr. Shane]

The sources I referred to were non-partisan economists...

I don't believe such an animal exists.

[Dr. Shane]

I did the math. I already posted it. $3.5 trillion more in revenue over 10 years by reversing the Bush tax cuts, moving the highest marginal rate from 35% to 38%.

That doesn't get us there. We are scheduled to increase spending over the next 10 years by over $10 trillion. And the estimates that the tax increases will raise $3.5 trillion is an educated guess. If the tax hikes actually cause the economy to slow down, that estimate could come in much less.

The economy is growing just under 2%. Spending is scheduled to grow at 7.5%. Do we really believe we can close that gap by simply taxing the rich an additional 3% and there will be no negative impact on the economy? That is being extremely optimistic.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

When you hit the businessman with more expense who do you think ends up paying?

The consumer pays. That is why it is so foolish to say the poor do not pay taxes. If they buy products or services produced by companies, they pay taxes.

FACT: They do not pay federal income tax.No one has claimed they do not by force pay other taxes.

You keep hammering on that always going past what was actually said. As if by making it sound like anyone has claimed the poor don't pay any tax at all.

It is the federal income tax to go up. Then the poor can choose to buy a product that has gone up in price because of it

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

The sources I referred to were non-partisan economists...

I don't believe such an animal exists.

The proof is in the lack of results of failed past efforts to increase revenue by cutting taxes. Just read the two sources I linked.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I did the math. I already posted it. $3.5 trillion more in revenue over 10 years by reversing the Bush tax cuts, moving the highest marginal rate from 35% to 38%.

That doesn't get us there. We are scheduled to increase spending over the next 10 years by over $10 trillion. And the estimates that the tax increases will raise $3.5 trillion is an educated guess. If the tax hikes actually cause the economy to slow down, that estimate could come in much less.

The economy is growing just under 2%. Spending is scheduled to grow at 7.5%. Do we really believe we can close that gap by simply taxing the rich an additional 3% and there will be no negative impact on the economy? That is being extremely optimistic.

And no spending cut alone proposal get's us there either. There has to be a balanced approach using both budgeting tools to fix the problem. Obama is not advocating increasing taxes without cutting spending. (And neither have I suggested that...)

And compare who is also advocating cutting the most in spending. The most recent permutation of the Republican proposal doesn't even cut a trillion dollars. Obama's and the Democratic Senate proposals cut 2 to 3 times that.

The facts remain that the neither the Bush tax cuts nor the Reagan tax cuts achieved the projected deficit reduction goals. The proof is in the historic results. See for yourself - http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

[Dr. Shane]

The proof is in the lack of results of failed past efforts to increase revenue by cutting taxes. Just read the two sources I linked.

[Tom Wetmore]

And the failure of a supply sided economic approach to Federal budget planning shows in the results - http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Both Reagan and Bush cut taxes and didn't worry about increased spending based on the theory that cutting taxes would so stimulate the economy that revenue would increase enough to make increased spending possible. It simply did not work.

[Dr. Shane]

And no spending cut alone proposal get's us there either. There has to be a balanced approach...

[Dr. Shane]

Both Reagan and Bush cut taxes and didn't worry about increased spending based on the theory that cutting taxes would so stimulate the economy that revenue would increase enough to make increased spending possible. It simply did not work.

Supply-side economics does stimulate the economy. It worked when Reagan did it and when Kennedy did it. And more revenue does come in from an economy that is growing. The question is if the economic stimulation caused by the tax cut is enough to pay for the tax cut itself.

The competing economic theory is the Keynesian model. It essentially teaches that government can spend its way into prosperity. It is dependent on increasing taxes in order to fund government spending. The Great Depression proved it to be a failure at stimulating the economy. Obama's Trillion dollar stimulus bill was based on the Keynesian model and here we sit two years later with unemployment still above 9%.

So Supply-side economics has proven it will stimulate the economy but has failed to prove that new economic activity is enough to pay for the tax cuts which created it.

The Keynesian model has failed to show it will significantly stimulate the economy and unless paid for by tax hikes, it is just as devastating to the deficit as tax cuts are.

President Bush actually combined tax cuts with a stimulus package. Obama cut the payroll tax in addition to his stimulus. So the Bush tax cuts were not completely supply side nor has Obama been completely Keynesian. Both Obama and Bush created a sort of hybrid of the two economic theories.