Author Topic: Al Bundy has spoken  (Read 6204 times)

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2008, 08:49:08 PM »
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

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2008, 08:53:21 PM »
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."

Pete Dimano

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2008, 08:55:03 PM »
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.
!

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2008, 09:02:47 PM »
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.

Veteran_Lifter

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 385
  • haha
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2008, 09:47:22 PM »
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.

RX MOGOL

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2008, 12:24:49 AM »
Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game.  He did not throw 4 touchdowns.  He was the halfback.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2008, 12:52:53 AM »

Aquiles

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 295
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2008, 01:22:24 AM »
Well if Al Bundy says it ... it must be the truth!!!!!  8)

LatsMcGee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7464
  • Getbig!
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2008, 01:30:06 AM »
He is a brown belt in Gracie Jiu Jitsu.

gordiano

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17124
  • TEAM "CUTE PENIS", TEAM TRIFLIN' RONNIE COLEMAN
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2008, 01:34:16 AM »
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....
HAHA, RON.....

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2008, 04:06:33 AM »
  Wow, he's aged...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

He was probably 40 when that show was the shit, and that was 20 years ago.

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2008, 11:16:35 AM »
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. 




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

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2008, 11:19:08 AM »
Coach -

If Obama and Mccain had reversed economic plans - If Obama would tax you less, and McCain more -

Which man would you vote for?

_bruce_

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 23432
  • Sam Sesambröt Sulek
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2008, 11:19:56 AM »
Al had a good physique - great frame.
.

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2008, 11:36:30 AM »
I'm not a one issue voter Rob.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2008, 11:55:01 AM »
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?

Below Me

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • Getbig!
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2008, 12:09:15 PM »
Most bodybuilder make less than $20,000 a year, so they better back Obama.

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2008, 12:12:25 PM »
Yes.....but not on that issue.

stormshadow

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Getbig!
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2008, 01:47:01 PM »
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?


Busted

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2178
  • PROUD MEMBER OF TEAM MOWER
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2008, 02:04:51 PM »
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..

Busted

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2178
  • PROUD MEMBER OF TEAM MOWER
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2008, 02:07:09 PM »
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

Busted

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2178
  • PROUD MEMBER OF TEAM MOWER
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2008, 02:15:45 PM »
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....

Mrdibbs

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2008, 02:32:39 PM »
Today a fatt woman came into the shoe store. She said'' I NEED SHOES''. I said '' try the blacksmith''.

LurkyLurker

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 626
  • Advices
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2008, 02:51:16 PM »
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!

The Coach

  • Guest
Re: Al Bundy has spoken
« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2008, 04:00:30 PM »
Ummm, unless I'm missing something, he's not just talking about personal income, you keep referring to "personal income".