You're a persistent little pissant aren't you?


<rolling eyes>
Yes, you're right, the banking system shouldn't even exist and a really smart business owner should never need to use debt as an instrument of business.

If a contractor wants to build a neighborhood full of spec houses, he should have $10MM cash on hand to do it with...to buy the materials, pay all the laborers, and get all the permits and equipment necessary.
He should be able to front all of this out of pocket until he can sell the houses and make his profit. If he has to use a bank for any of this he must be a failure. It's ridiculous to think that a guy like this could constantly have debt on his books and yet still make a profit.

If someone wants to open a car dealership, they should have millions on hand to buy their inventory with before they open. If they have to use a floorplan from a bank, where they pay the interest on the inventory until it's sold, they must be stupid and a complete failure at business.
How dare someone try to open a car dealership without first having millions of dollars in cash on hand?

I'll tell you something else too, that fucking idiot Bill Gates should have never taken out a loan to buy that computer he and Allen wrote their first operating system on. What kind of stupid businessman would do that? There's no way that guy would ever amount to anything. If he didn't have enough cash on hand to start the business, then he shouldn't have started it.

</rolling eyes>

So if the government spends the money as opposed to individuals, then the money is no longer in the economy?

A few things one the highest tax increases in this country during peacetime was during Reagan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp (national review not a liberal publication)
During W taxes were cut wealth grew and wages flat lined and unemployment has been steadily growing. Including the number that just gave up looking or those who could only find part time work but are now considered employed.
If putting a little extra money in peoples pockets makes them spend then the tax rebates should of bought a boom to consumer spending and it didnt. Because people are putting it in the bank or paying a bill.
Also over 50 percent of us companies dont pay income taxes. so you could lower the tax to zero and it wont mean shit.
My father worked for one of the largest health insurance companies in the world. They were constantly laying people off and putting more and more work on the people left. At the same time they were having banner quarters and the chairman gave himself almost a half a billion dollar bonus. so lowering taxes will create jobs because the companies will have more money is a myth.
People forget the government puts 200 million dollars to condoms that creates and keeps jobs. Someone has to give them out,someone has to supply them.Those people go out to lunch,shop at walmart. Same with fixing up the mall those people working spend and then it effects others. Or they build a road or give states money to keep cops working. Then the donuts guy doesnt have to lay people off because less cops are coming in for donuts and so on and so on.

Stop trolling my posts you obsessed, psychotic piss ant. :disgust

wow, i was trying to be sarcastic .... i should have said Walmart Greeter, instead of walmart check out...

hahaha, that's too funny.

Of course what you said is true in terms of lower income people....but that's not what I wanted this discussion to be about.

sorry to point out the flaws in your arguement.


unfortunately it happens to be true

sales taxes are recessive, they punish people with lower incomes more because they spend a greater portion of their income.

Actually I think the word you're looking for is "regressive"

Besides, they're not punishing people with lower incomes, they're just "time-shifting" their future, higher incomes to the present day. :winkwink:

Shemp and his famous quotes... ehehehe

1. time shifting monies or deferring taxes is a decent way of stimulating the economy, it creates more available income. Available income (also for high income self employed people) is more likely to be used for like consumer goods, cars, televisions, boats and hookers.
2. Now can anyone explain to me how cutting capital gains taxes or cutting income taxes for wealthy small business owners "creates jobs"?
It creates more incentive for the small business owner to grow his business since he feels he could get a better return than putting the money in the mattress
cap gains: it creates more opportunity to invest in real estate (which is really where we need stimuli)(again a possibility to avoid paying taxes on investment is a big plus)

In my view.. "it depends" like pretty much everything else in this world.

While you are correct - businesses hire with pre-tax dollars, you don't actually delve into the tax code to see how this "really" works.

For example, our business is extremely capital intensive - we have to buy servers weekly, or we will slowly go out of business. In this manner, much of our "capital" expenditures really *should* be classified as an operating expense. Unfortunately, the tax code does not agree :)

Thus, we are taxed on "phantom" income - income that is simply not there, since we had to spend it on new equipment to upgrade customers on older stuff/etc.

So.. in our case where we are putting almost every dollar in profit right back into growing the company - a lower tax rate on capital expenses would directly equate to more jobs. Not many, of course - but having an extra few hundred thousand a year or whatnot either means we can hire more staff, or more likely buy more equipment to get more customers, which then requires more staff to support.

So.. I agree with both sides. Cutting business taxes may not directly equate to job growth in many businesses, but it can in others. It also very much depends on what *kind* of tax cuts you are proposing as well.

-Phil

I'll repeat myself again....you pay capital gains tax when you sell an investment, not when you make the investment...so a low rate today encourages me to sell my assets, it doesn't encourage me to invest in new ones....because nobody knows what the rate will be when I decide to sell what I buy today.

I agree in your situation, that when you buy equipment for your business it should be an expense, just like paying a salary or buying advertising.
I never cared for the whole depreciation game, I always thought it was silly.

True dat

a. Define 'wealthy'. A small business owner making 120,000.00 a year is not 'wealthy'. Well off.. maybe. But take geography into the equation as well. New York, L.A., Seattle, San Diego. Not remotely close. Middle American, $120k is a nice living.

b. Capital gains influences where I invest. Short or long term, and the money. Do I invest in my business, or do I invest in the stock market while I could maybe make some coin while stocks are down. Same as people cashing out their 401K's at this time have to consider the capital gains, and do they spend that money paying down debt, or buying new shit.

I know a handful of people in my personal life pondering this very decision right no on their 401k, and other shit. Having to pay capital gains, and penalties.

As a small business owner, where I take my profits, and where I invest it will be effected by the other mitigating factors. Stockings, bond, real estate, etc. Especially if I am going to tie up a chunk of money for any period of time.

Agreed.

I buy new computers every 12-18 months. My accountant refuses to just write them off for a full year taxes, so I have 8 computers in various levels of depreciation.

lol...

There is no such thing as capital gains taxes on a 401(k)
401(k) is tax deferred money. No taxes are paid on capital gains or dividends. The money is taxed as ordinary income as it is withdrawn.

I don't see how capital gains tax rates will influence where you invest unless you're talking very short term investments (in which case it's more like gambling than "investing") because cap gains tax might be 15% today, but it could be 25% next year when you sell. You don't get a 15% future capital gains rate because you invested today. That's not how it works.

so if it is encouraging investors to sell, it will also encourage other investors to buy those assets, this is if i am not mistaken investment101 or alphaomega type stuff.
same if all of a sudden there was no tax on stock gains, it would entice investors to invest in stocks so that they would capitalize on those opportunities..

congrats :thumbsup

wal-mart will NOT hire another check out person. they'll just pocket the money and expect people to wait longer in line. Also most poorer people getting tax cut would just pay off debt not spend it. Give a tax cut to a rich guy and he'll either buy foreign shit or spend it overseas. Either way it ain't helping America.

So Snake, since you think the government would be better with your money how much EXTRA are you going to give them? 20, 30, 40% more? I mean your man Obama knows how to spend your money better than you do! Why not give 60% more to the government to show that you really believe what you say.

I was reading what's considered wealthy by banks is someone with $750k in liquid. A 20 grand tax break isnt going to change anything they do,its another 20 grand in the account.

oh stop just stop

You are obviously very confused. You can't do something that encourages people to both buy and sell, as they are diametrically opposed. If it's a good time to do one, then by definition, it's a bad time to do the other.

Democrats new motto "What is mine is mine, what is your is mine". You all want others to pay the higher taxes you dont want to do it yourselves. Just be honest, you dont want higher taxes you want other people to do all the work.

I dont want anyone to pay higher taxes. I want people to keep what they make. I have faith in people not the government. America would be a lot better if we all had more faith in ourselves and not look to the government to do all the lifting.

read the link I posted a few posts up. The largest tax increase during peacetime was during St Reagan.you want to fight wars , kill terrorists it costs money. if they let it all fail you are in a world of shit but your taxes arent increased.

Your logic would make a better point if most Americans didn't carry a shitload of debt, weren't in bankruptcy and having their houses foreclosed and and have the worst saving rates in the world. So to be honest no I do not trust most Americans to know what to do with their own money.

Why do you keep thinking I love Regan and McCain? :error
Why do you think I want the war on terror like Obama does? :error

Tax cut = more $$ floating around...

That money is then spent or invested somewhere.. seems pretty obvious?


Then your investment argument, you invest with intention of selling it one day, you don't just do it for fun... When tax rate is low obviously investments become more appealing...

Most Americans arent.

The wealthy voted in favor of Obama, so I wouldn't exactly say that they want everyone else paying their taxes.

I don't think anyone wants to pay more in taxes. But we've decided as a society that we want our government to do things for us (roads, schools, etc). The money has to come from somewhere. We can tax the poor and middle class heavier and make things equal, but we know that would cause heavy financial burden for them. They are my customers, so I prefer that they have money to buy what I'm selling.

Where is the money for the spending bill coming from?

Your thread read I admit I didn't read your initial post because I know your posts usually consist of blah blah blah.. look at how smart I am... blah blah.. big words thrown in for extra arrogance.. blah blah

So yeah, I just responded to the title. Guilty as charged :thumbsup

The majority of tax revenues come from the rich. The plan is for that money to be used for projects that will create jobs. Putting people back to work will add more consumers to the economy who can buy products and services from the rich. This in turn will also increase investments that are held by the rich.

The idea that the stimulus is only for the poor is misconceived. The rich are hurt a lot during recessions.

That would be viewed globally as a "beggar thy neighbor" type of policy move which would guarantee an ever "Greater" depression...

It would also violate international trade agreements.

It is impossible unless you want to go back to the bronze age.

I have that testyourgirls idiot on ignore, PLEASE stop quoting him.

Gee, sorry for having a vocabulary.

Yeah I'm not trying to have a discussion or an honest debate or anything, I just sit here with my unabridged dictionary and paste in words with lots of syllables to try and make myself look good.

That's just it woj, it does seem to make sense, which is why it makes for great 30 second ads and bumper stickers, until you scratch below the surface.

Then you ask questions like "how is government spending the money less stimulative than consumers spending the money"?
I'm not saying government should take all of our money and spend it, I'm just pointing out that calling government spending "waste" and calling tax cuts "stimulative" is ridiculous. At least if government spends the money with the intention of stimulating the economy, they can target the funds towards that and be more effective than a consumer who may just pay down credit card debt or buy goods at Wal-mart that were made in China.

As for investments, you pay the tax when you sell the investment, not when you buy it, so a low rate today doesn't make buying a stock or bond or business more attractive, it makes selling one of those things more attractive.

Because government doesnt have any money. They need to take it from someone or even worse they need to PRINT IT. Making the money they do spend worth less. That is why government spending is bad.

Shit you have me on ignore, never mind.

Well, the US government is around $70 trillion in the red :)

yes the money is still in the economy but
it is not directed to the places it needs to go.
it effectiveness
you need the money to be targetted to certain areas to be most effective.

And by giving $500 or $1000 or whatever to each individual taxpayer to do with as they please, it then gets directed most effectively?

But when the govt spends it on roads, bridges, tunnels, a new electricity grid, high speed rail, etc then it's not going to the most effective places?

one word
pork.
A government bill will allocate money not on what is best for the country but what is best for the districts represented by the congress. It results in stupid projects which have no investment value other than the jobs in a region. Once the money is gone those jobs disappear as well. When the money i is directed to investment, those that make money, and can be sell sustaining are rewarded, those that can't are not.

governments have to worry about appeasing the unions in a way that business do not, because quite simply unions can cost an official an election. The workers have to much power so yes government spending ends up being wasteful. Market driven investment is not so influenced so it becomes far more productive even with the act of buying stuff from china.

Protectionist thinking results in retalitory tarrifs so if the government were to "direct" the income to home grown business that would result in foreign countries doing the same. which would cost even more jobs in america.

Paying down a credit card debt, give the banks more money, which loosens lending restrictions, to businesses, this is exactly what is currently need now.


you can't sell an investment unless someone else buys it, the transaction is balanced. So if person A sells the stock to pay down his debt person b must buy the stock.

The end result is the company keeps the money, in the investement coffers, while the banks get more lendable capital (the desired result). IF they spend it instead, that some business gets the money, and with lower taxes can give bigger dividends which again put money into the economy to pay down debt and free up lendable capital (the desired result).

The two examples you gave while rolling your eyes are examples of the types of business that would be help specifically by the loosening of the banks lendable capital.
And all the jobs that are created by those business is where the job growth is comming from.