It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by neo96
Yeah and the Bush tax cuts totally got the economy booming....I mean there were so many jobs created by those job creators that it made my head spin.edit on 23-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: TO edit my post
Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
There is a HUGE contradiction in this liberal thinking. Do you want businesses to pay more taxes or not? Based on this article businesses don't pay more taxes, on the contrary they hide their wealth in the business, and actually keep more money. So they aren't really paying their fair share now are they? Techniqually, it's like saying we need to increase taxes on businesses so they will pay less taxes.......What? So technically you agree with a conservitive mindset that states:" when you allow people to keep more of their money they tend to grow." we just disagree on how about making people keep more of their money. Conservitives believe people keep more money when taxes are low, you believe people keep more money when taxes are high. OK. At least we can all agree that we should keep more money, and the government should have less.edit on 23-9-2011 by Snorkelbacon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mastahunta
Higher taxes do create jobs if the owner decides to reinvested profits back into the business as opposed to paying themselves into a higher tax bracket.
You have such simplified concept that it does not even begin to examine all the possibility found in the Tax Code. Why would I pay myself a million dollars and get taxed on that money, when that same million can be used to increase my output and the networth of my business several fold?
I know one thing
There aren't any millionaires on this thread
Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
There is a HUGE contradiction in this liberal thinking.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Howakan
That gets into a Keynesian philosophy of perpetual growth. The West has seen, in it's own way, perpetual growth since the 1940's .. eventual the mechanics of the system will get so large, so spread over such a vast array of areas, that the system implodes. Which it has. Banking fell first because they used their excess cash to buy everything under the sun, and other corporations expanded on a mass sum of credit ... better to spend and expand than to sit idle and be taxed.
"To big to fail" comes to mind. It's like a law of nature, economics.. you can manipulate corporations to expand but eventually you will violate a principle rule and the system will crash.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Reinvest how? Why would you grow a business if there is no additional market for its goods or services? You are assuming there is. Businesses grow out of demand. No demand, no growth, no matter how much you 'reinvest' in it.
That's just ridiculous. That money is just going to sit there looking pretty? The only tax savings would be 7.6% (employment tax) if you take it out through distributions rather than through payroll. Uncle sam gets his pound of flesh either way.
I bet you'd be surprised.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Liberals would like to see millionaires left with about $15,000 of income a year, after taxes - like all the poor, poor souls who have crappy jobs because they preferred to blaze a bowl with their loser buddies behind the gym rather than attend class.
Originally posted by SeleneLux
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Liberals would like to see millionaires left with about $15,000 of income a year, after taxes - like all the poor, poor souls who have crappy jobs because they preferred to blaze a bowl with their loser buddies behind the gym rather than attend class.
Do you really think this? Do you have any idea how the tax system worked before Reagan began the end of the middle class?
This nation has way too many idiots.
God help us all.
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by Howakan
I own a subchapter s corporation and incorporated only to shield myself from liability. There is zero tax benefit for me because I incorporated. But there would be major risk to me, my home, my savings if I didnt.
My tax rate is "exactly" the same, whether incorporated or not. It is exactly the same whether I keep the money or leave it in the company. Doesnt matter. And C corps are taxed at an even higher rate.
You need a better accountant than...
Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
Can anyone debunk this Liberal claim thank you the Person is saying higher Income Tax creates a Incentive to create Jobs ?
Thom Hartmann: But it seemed, just common sense. I remember back in the ‘80s, I owned a business, International Wholesale Travel in Atlanta, Georgia. That business has, since we sold it done over 200 billion dollars in business.
Hartmann founded International Wholesale Travel and its retail subsidiary Sprayberry Travel in Atlanta in 1983, a business which in the intervening years[clarification needed] has generated over a quarter of a billion dollars in revenue
Originally posted by Howakan
One of my bibles has been the E Myth, which basically splits owners into 3 groups.....managers, technicians and entrepreneurs. It encourages you to "realize" what you are and hire what you arent. I got myself as an Entrepreneur/technician, so I have work hard on the administrative aspect. Dont misunderstand, Ive always done very well for myself and family, but hey, if I can keep more in my pocket, then thats what I wanna do.
Originally posted by narwahl
Originally posted by macman
As an increase in taxes, step to an increase in price of goods and services, thus stepping to an increase in price overall.
Not true for income taxes, and if the business is in the situation that it will sell less stuff if the stuff costs more. (And even monopolies are in that position).
Mr X sells 1 product a year, for 1000$. He gets taxed 20%. So he makes 800$
Taxes increase to 25%. He still wants to make 800$
So he increases the price to 1066$
But, now ask yourself, If you would buy the product at 1066 just as readily as at 1000... Why isn't Mr X demanding 1066$ to start with?
If I could sell it for 1066 just as easily as for 1000... I would, wouldn't you?