Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 28, 2008, 06:32:01 AM
-
-
Massive hands
-
He once threw for 4 touchdowns in a single game.
-
A kinda lost a little bit of respect for him in a stupid ad like that :(
-
that man is my hero
-
Stupid ad, and I know you're not supposed to take it seriously, but how come he gets a tax cut and I don't??
-
Stupid ad, and I know you're not supposed to take it seriously, but how come he gets a tax cut and I don't??
Al Bundy is a legend, Tre. Regular people can relate to him.
-
its going to make no difference who wins the election
you lower taxes in one place you raise costs in another, its just money shuffling
-
Weird ad. Couldnt even make out what he was saying in the beginning.
Love Al Bundy tho! :D
-
its going to make no difference who wins the election
you lower taxes in one place you raise costs in another, its just money shuffling
But if we put the IRS out of business and make those fuckers get real jobs, everybody wins!
-
hahahahahah good ad!
-
Stupid ad, and I know you're not supposed to take it seriously, but how come he gets a tax cut and I don't??
Did you score 4 touchdowns in one game for Polk High?
-
Stupid ad, and I know you're not supposed to take it seriously, but how come he gets a tax cut and I don't??
I am 100 percent positive you do get a tax break. You DO NOT make over a quarter million dollars a year as 95-99 percent of people DO NOT. Your business does not make over a quarter million dollars in profit as 98 percent of small businesses do not.
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Try it out for yourself.
-
I liked Peg and the little Slut sister better. ;D
-
Hahahahahaha........what a crock of shit.
-
he can fight.
-
Hahahahahaha........what a crock of shit.
Legit economists have actually put that on a spread sheet and all agreed there was no way. WTF did you expect from his site, an honest answer? Hahahahaha
-
I am 100 percent positive you do get a tax break. You DO NOT make over a quarter million dollars a year as 95-99 percent of people DO NOT. Your business does not make over a quarter million dollars in profit as 98 percent of small businesses do not.
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Try it out for yourself.
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
-
I am 100 percent positive you do get a tax break. You DO NOT make over a quarter million dollars a year as 95-99 percent of people DO NOT. Your business does not make over a quarter million dollars in profit as 98 percent of small businesses do not.
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Try it out for yourself.
ELECTION 2008
Obama's tax-cut threshold shrinking?
Confusion abounds as voters hear $250,000, $200,000, now $150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 28, 2008
2:42 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A new video advertisement released by the Obama campaign says the candidate's promised tax cuts are for citizens making less than $200,000 a year, not the widely reported figure of $250,000.
Adding to the confusion, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, said in an interview yesterday the cuts are for even fewer people, limited to incomes of $150,000 or less.
Depending on the source of information, just who will have their taxes raised and who will have them cut under Obama's plan varies.
The campaign's homepage, for example, accessed today, reads, "Obama said he wanted to give a tax break to all families making under $250,000 per year, which he said was 95 percent of American workers."
Yet in the "Defining Moment" ad released on YouTube last week and viewable below, Obama says the tax cut "for 95 percent of working Americans" is only for those who make less than $200,000 per year.
According to the 2006 IRS statistics published by the National Taxpayers Union, "95 percent of working Americans" only includes those making less than $153,542 per year.
And now, Fox News reports Biden told a Scranton, Pa., TV station yesterday that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people – people making under $150,000 a year."
At a rally in Pennsylvania, CBS News reports, McCain took the opportunity to blast Obama as a candidate with more and more taxes on his mind.
"Sen. Obama has made a lot of promises," McCain said. "First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000 you'll benefit – but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Sen. Biden said tax relief should only go to 'middle class people – people making under 150,000 dollars a year.' You getting an idea of what's on their mind?"
(Story continues below)
"I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class that begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans," Obama says in the "Defining Moment" advertisement. "If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut."
The full "Defining Moment" advertisement can be seen below:
The disparity in the numbers has Republican campaigners riled.
The Obama campaign media site, The Record, quotes Tucker Bounds, spokesman for McCain-Palin saying, "By adjusting his tax increases to include anyone making more than $200,000, Barack Obama has reversed himself and issued a shifty new call for at least 1 million more hardworking Americans to be added to his plans for higher taxes."
The Record immediately rebutted Bounds, insisting Obama's plan has always included a tax hike on Americans making more than $250,000, but the tax cut is only for those making less than $200,000.
The site then quotes Obama at the Oct. 7 presidential debate: "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."
Biden's comments yesterday, however, have heated up criticism again.
"You getting an idea of what's on their mind, huh? A little sneak peak," McCain said, according to Fox News. "It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase."
Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor did not directly address Biden's comments, but he released a statement about McCain's criticism.
"The McCain campaign's attacks are getting more desperate by the hour," Vietor said. "Obama and Biden have always said, under their plan no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. And if your family makes less than $200,000 – as 95 percent of workers and their families do – you'll get a tax cut."
-
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
The Egostic mind would still try to be ahead of this fellow man even if the tax % was 99%...
-
The Egostic mind would still try to be ahead of this fellow man even if the tax % was 99%...
Oh, make no mistake, I am....I'm waaaay ahead if he should get elected. But I still want someone to answer the question.
-
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
There has to be a tradeoff somewhere. Would you rather have higher taxes on working class citizens and continue giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations? Also, if working class Americans are getting a break on their taxes, it could help many small businesses grow by stimulating consumer spending. You are never going to be able to have the best of both worlds, so it is just a matter of opinion really.
-
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
Simple. The more people that get a tax break, the more they can afford to spend, the more potential clients you will have.
Also, this helps others who would like to own a small business as they are able to save more to the point where they can buy or start a successful venture.
Another way to look at it is this: This should make you want to succeed more if you are trying to make up the difference.
However Joe, I like you, but I do not believe for one minute that you are in the 2 percent minority of small business owners that make 250,000 profit.
A side note: The Conservative and Financial Magazine, The Economist ENDORSE OBAMA`S economic plans.
(http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/economistpoll.gif)
Economist Poll: Strong Majority of Economists Favor Obama
By Matt Nisbet at Framing Science
Just how bad as the information tide turned against McCain on the economy? The conservative Economist magazine, in survey results published this week, finds that economists overwhelmingly name Obama as more qualified to handle the economy.
-
Thought you might like this one too Coach:
Financial Times endorses Obama
October 26, 2008
LONDON (AFP) — The Financial Times, the respected business daily, endorsed Barack Obama on Monday to become the next US president, even though it prefers the trade policies of his Republican rival John McCain.
The newspaper, which has a daily readership of about 1.3 million worldwide according to its parent company Pearson, said the Democrat's policies blended the "good, not so good and downright bad" but he was "the right choice".
Just over a week before the November 4 election, Obama has been leading McCain by more than 10 points in some national and state polls.
The FT said the Democrat had run his campaign "superbly", and while not the same as governing, this was a "test of leadership". By contrast, McCain's campaign "has often looked a shambles", it said in an editorial.
Likewise Obama was as "fine a political orator as the country has heard in decades", but McCain was merely "adequate" in a skill used to inspire voters.
The paper praised Obama's main domestic proposal, comprehensive healthcare reform, judging McCain's plan "too timid".
The FT condemned the Democrat's policy on trade as "disappointing", saying he "pandered to protectionism" in the early stages and has not pulled back, while McCain had been "bravely and consistently pro-trade, much to his credit".
But it applauded Obama's handling of the financial crisis, saying he displayed a "calm and methodical disposition" while McCain had offered "hasty half-baked interventions".
On foreign policy, expected to be McCain's strong point, the Republican seemed "too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action", the FT added.
-
Another
Major Conservative Republican Economist Endorses Obama!
-
Thought you might like this Coach,
Here is a list of distinguished Conservatives endorsing Obama:
Conservatives
* Abilene Christian University
* Andrew Bacevich, Prof International Relations at Boston University
* Andrew Sullivan
* Barbara Lorman, former WI State Senate
* Barney Smith
* CC Goldwater
* Charles Fried, McCain advisor
* Charles Krauthammer, comment
* Charles McC. Matias, Jr, former Senator MD
* Christopher Buckley
* Collin Powell
* David Brooks
* David Friedman, economics law teacher
* Dick Lugar
* Doug Kmiec, lawyer to Reagan and HW Bush
* Elizabeth Drew, author
* Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
* Jackson Andrews, KY
* Jim Leach, former IA Congressman
* Jim Whitacker, Mayor Fairbanks, AL
* Ken Adelman, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan...
* Larry Hunter, Reagan Chief economist
* Larry Pressler
* Lincoln Chafee, former Senator, RI
* Linwood Holton, former Gov VA
* London, UK, Mayor Boris
* Lowell Weicker, former CT Senator
* Major General Walter Stewart
* Mark McKinnon, McCain advisor
* Michael Smerconish
* MN, Gov Arne Carlson (former)
* Nicholas, IU
* Obamacans
* PA Patrick Ohara, Professor
* Richard Riordan, former LA mayor
* Rita Hauser, GW Bush foreigh policy
* Scott McClellan, Ws Press Secretary
* Senator Chuck Hagle, R-NB
* Susan Eisenhower
* Video: Conservatives for Change
* Wick Allison, D Magazine EIC
-
Here you go Joe:
The American Small Business League Endorses Barack Obama
American Small Business League: Sen. Obama Will Protect Small Business and Help Remove Large Firms From Federal Small Business Contracting
American Small Business League
PETALUMA, CA--(Marketwire - February 26, 2008) - Today the American Small Business League (ASBL) endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President.
The ASBL is confident in Sen. Obama's leadership and commitment to American-owned small business. Since 2002, a series of federal investigations have found that billions of dollars in federal small business contracts have actually wound up in the hands of some of the largest corporations in the world. It is time for change and as Sen. Obama has so vehemently stated, "Yes We Can." The diversion of federal small business contracts to large corporations is a non-partisan issue that affects all Americans. Sen. Obama's record of rising above the influence of big business lobbying and his commitment to small businesses make him the best candidate to end dramatic abuses in federal small business contracting.
President of the ASBL Lloyd Chapman added, "I am so tired of being disappointed by our elected officials. For the first time in many years I am genuinely excited about this election. In my life, I have never been more excited about any politician than I am about Barack Obama. I believe that he holds the key to a new future for all Americans. I believe that with Sen. Obama in the White House, Americans are going to be more proud of this country than they have ever been in their lives."
"I am proud to have the support of the American Small Business League and their grassroots efforts to help protect American small business. Helping American small business is part of our movement for change and the end of politics as usual," Sen. Obama said. "98 percent of all American companies have fewer than 100 employees. Over half of all Americans work for a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."
-
Even in the midst of a final bombardment in the battle for the White House the sound of gunfire can be heard coming from behind Republican lines, presaging a protracted and bitter civil war. A party that only four years ago appeared so disciplined and dominant as it delivered President Bush a second term is now divided in the face of an anticipated rout that may give Democrats unfettered power across Washington. Mr Bush's legacy — unfinished wars, a tainted reputation for competence, record high spending, a global economic crisis and the effective nationalisation of the financial system — have shaken loose the ideological cement that once bound the Republican party together.
This has left national security realists at odds with “neocon” hawks over Iraq, fiscal conservatives railing against the bailout of Wall Street, and the Religious right — “theo-cons” — skirmishing with the party leadership over what it regards as a too-timid approach on issues such as abortion, civil partnerships and illegal immigration. Such fractures in the coalition, apparent in a primary campaign which John McCain won despite securing significantly less than half the vote, have become infected with gangrene during the presidential election.
Threatened with open revolt if he picked the independent Democrat Joe Lieberman as his running-mate, Mr McCain hoped to galvanise his party by choosing Sarah Palin. The result has been a dysfunctional campaign. Some of his own advisers say that she is more intent on positioning herself for the next presidential race than fighting this one. Her defenders point out that it is she who pulls the crowds, not him, and suggest that Mrs Palin has been ill-served - even betrayed — by Mr McCain's team.
<snip>
The list of Republicans backing Mr Obama includes not only centrist figures such as General Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, but also Ken Adelman — a leading neocon who advised Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq and introduced Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish former Deputy Defence Secretary. Mr Adelman admits to being startled at finding himself in Democrat ranks, attributing his defection to doubts about Mr McCain's temperament and his “appalling lack of judgment” in picking Mrs Palin. He told The New Yorker magazine: “I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency.”
Christopher Buckley, whose father helped to found the modern conservative movement, has also swallowed his right-wing principles to back Mr Obama, contrasting the Democrat's “first-class intellect” with Mr McCain's decision to pluck Mrs Palin from the Alaskan wilderness. “What on Earth can he have been thinking?” he asked.
-
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Larry Hunter, Reagan Chief Economist
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama
BY LARRY HUNTER
Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 7:39 PM
I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.
This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.
John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.
Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.
These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.
Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and president of the Social Security Institute.
-
Does this idiot Adonis even realize that everything in the US political arena is completely contrived. ::) He doesn't even understand that Obama is just a puppet. What a fucking moron.
-
Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game. He did not throw 4 touchdowns. He was the halfback.
-
Wow, he's aged...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Well if Al Bundy says it ... it must be the truth!!!!! 8)
-
He is a brown belt in Gracie Jiu Jitsu.
-
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Larry Hunter, Reagan Chief Economist
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama
BY LARRY HUNTER
Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 7:39 PM
I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.
This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.
John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.
Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.
These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.
Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and president of the Social Security Institute.
Wow....there may be hope yet....
-
Wow, he's aged...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
He was probably 40 when that show was the shit, and that was 20 years ago.
-
Simple. The more people that get a tax break, the more they can afford to spend, the more potential clients you will have.
Also, this helps others who would like to own a small business as they are able to save more to the point where they can buy or start a successful venture.
Another way to look at it is this: This should make you want to succeed more if you are trying to make up the difference.
However Joe, I like you, but I do not believe for one minute that you are in the 2 percent minority of small business owners that make 250,000 profit.
A side note: The Conservative and Financial Magazine, The Economist ENDORSE OBAMA`S economic plans.
(http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/economistpoll.gif)
Economist Poll: Strong Majority of Economists Favor Obama
By Matt Nisbet at Framing Science
Just how bad as the information tide turned against McCain on the economy? The conservative Economist magazine, in survey results published this week, finds that economists overwhelmingly name Obama as more qualified to handle the economy.
Adam...it's not profit, it's gross income. Does my personal income exceed $250,000? no. But my business exceeds does.
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.
See also
VP prospects move to fix flaws
Controversy precedes Obama Germany visit
McCain camp reassures GOP of finances
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.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html
-
Coach -
If Obama and Mccain had reversed economic plans - If Obama would tax you less, and McCain more -
Which man would you vote for?
-
Al had a good physique - great frame.
-
I'm not a one issue voter Rob.
-
I'm not a one issue voter Rob.
You didn't answer the question.
If McCain was going to take 30,000 from you - and 100k+ if you sell your home -
Would you still vote for him?
-
Most bodybuilder make less than $20,000 a year, so they better back Obama.
-
Yes.....but not on that issue.
-
I am 100 percent positive you do get a tax break. You DO NOT make over a quarter million dollars a year as 95-99 percent of people DO NOT. Your business does not make over a quarter million dollars in profit as 98 percent of small businesses do not.
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Try it out for yourself.
What about the 28% tax on capital gains if you sell your home?
-
Legit economists have actually put that on a spread sheet and all agreed there was no way. WTF did you expect from his site, an honest answer? Hahahahaha
Post your source. iv never once heard this..
-
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
First off, you dont want to grow, you just wanna pocket the money, which is your right as a business owner, 2nd, im sure taxing you 3% over 250,000 (which I highly doubt you make Joe the Trainer) isnt going to change you firing any employees you dont have to begin with, and saving that 3% wouldnt make you say OMG I NEED TO HIRE MORE...
You my friend are fucking dumb
-
Adam...it's not profit, it's gross income. Does my personal income exceed $250,000? no. But my business exceeds does.
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.
See also
VP prospects move to fix flaws
Controversy precedes Obama Germany visit
McCain camp reassures GOP of finances
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.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html
Then Joe you need to fire your accountant. My businesses make about 500,000 a year. I dont personally keep that, I pay myself 52,000 a year where I pay my taxes personally. But id say I get about a legit 200-250k in business write offs... hence why the "tax code" doesnt bother me....
-
Today a fatt woman came into the shoe store. She said'' I NEED SHOES''. I said '' try the blacksmith''.
-
Ok Adam...I'll bite. Whats my incentive as a small business to want to grow if he want's to tax me?
Incentive to grow? With a 39.6% marginal tax rate? You're joking, right? Would you have had incentive to grow a business under Reagan? Yes? The top tier marginal tax rate averaged over his terms in office was OVER 50%. Think you could have grown your business under another Republican hero, Richard Nixon? Yeah? During his rein the top marginal tax rate was over 70%.
So, you're scared over the prospect of growing your business so that your personal earned income is over $250k because you will have to pay an extra 4.9% margin over and above that $250k? Let's say you're earning $300k, which you'll probably never do. That added 4.9% on the $50k margin is... under $2,500. That's it. Under Reagan it would have been $7,500 and under Nixon it would have been $17,500.
So, Coach, you should be thankful for a President Obama, as opposed to another President Reagan or Nixon. Under them you would have had to sign your life away to the Socialist doctrine!
-
Ummm, unless I'm missing something, he's not just talking about personal income, you keep referring to "personal income".
-
http://teambalance.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blackbeltsweb1.jpg