The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Allowing some taxes on the income of those couples greater than $250K - which will affect only 2% of the population, and they get a tax break for income less than $250K - to go back to the normal Clinton-era levels, and additionally will cut $700 billion out of our deficit over the next 10 years - yeah, solves alot!

No it wont. The idea that the economic impact of raising taxes operates in a vaccum is wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

This could have been resolved months ago, except that the White House and Congressional Democrats insist that some taxes must be raised. Mr. Obama wants the lower rates to expire on incomes of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Dozens of Democrats revolted against that in the campaign, so the latest gambit, courtesy of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, would raise that threshold to $1 million.

Republicans shouldn't be suckered into raising taxes on anyone, especially not on small business job creators. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 39% (a combination of state average and federal rates) is already about 15 percentage points above the international average, and for the first time in a generation the personal rate of 41% would rise above the average of our overseas rivals. That's all before the 3.8% surtax on investment income arrives in 2013, courtesy of ObamaCare

Because most nations tax their companies at a business rate lower than the personal rate, the Tax Foundation says the Obama plan would mean that many Subchapter S corporations in the U.S. would pay "virtually the highest tax rates in the world on their business income." In other words, the after-tax rate of return on investment in the U.S. would fall relative to investing in Europe or Asia. This is an invitation to outsource more jobs. The U.S. should be cutting tax rates to become more competitive, as President Obama's deficit reduction commission and tax reform advisory panel have recommended.

About half the income taxed above $250,000 is business income, so small businesses get hammered from the Obama plan. Mr. Schumer argues that if the income threshold for higher taxes is raised to $1 million, Republicans will no longer be able to claim that this plan taxes small business income.

Not so. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as an entity with fewer than 500 employees. The Schumer plan shifts the tax onto larger, more profitable firms from relatively smaller ones. But this still puts jobs at risk. A business with $1 million or $10 million of net income has many times more employees and does a lot more hiring than a business with, say, $60,000 of net income or one that is losing money.

The Tax Foundation estimates that of tax filers reporting income of more than $1 million a year, about 80% have business income and that more than 60% of millionaire income is either business or investment income. So about two of every three dollars raised would come directly out of business coffers—i.e., from the capital that businesses need to expand their operations

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound. Tax payments by millionaires also increased dramatically after the Reagan and Kennedy tax rate reductions.

[Cannon Shell]

A counter argument to..well most of what Riot has posted lately...

except this one actually makes sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...317359202.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No it wont. The idea that the economic impact of raising taxes operates in a vaccum is wrong.

Yes, it will. That article is nice, but assumes much not in evidence.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, it will. That article is nice, but assumes much not in evidence.

Well actually it doesnt. The biggest joke of an assumption is that you can raise taxes on job creators and that it wont negatively effect jobs.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Well actually it doesnt. The biggest joke of an assumption is that you can raise taxes on job creators and that it wont negatively effect jobs.

Job creators in where India, China, Vietnam, Brazil, where ever labor can be arbitraged? Your logic is based upon old-school economcis which do not exist in the 21st century. Lowering the taxes on job creators simply means more money into the pockets of the CEO's.. They will continue outsourcing and using H1B labor. These lost jobs actually are the consumers of their own or customers products.. It is a game of financial musical chairs and at the end those at the VERY VERY top will have theirs and the rest will fend for the crumbs. The race to the bottom continues.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by jms62

Job creators in where India, China, Vietnam, Brazil, where ever labor can be arbitraged? Your logic is based upon old-school economcis which do not exist in the 21st century. Lowering the taxes on job creators simply means more money into the pockets of the CEO's.. They will continue outsourcing and using H1B labor. These lost jobs actually are the consumers of their own or customers products.. It is a game of financial musical chairs and at the end those at the VERY VERY top will have theirs and the rest will fend for the crumbs. The race to the bottom continues.

Thank You. Cannon, that covers the responses to about 5 of your entries above.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Thank You. Cannon, that covers the responses to about 5 of your entries above.

This theory is so idiotic. It is like saying the NBA shouldnt get more money for its tv rights in the next contract because LeBron James will then make more. And everybody hates LeBron and those nasty CEO's.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Job creators in where India, China, Vietnam, Brazil, where ever labor can be arbitraged? Your logic is based upon old-school economcis which do not exist in the 21st century. Lowering the taxes on job creators simply means more money into the pockets of the CEO's.. They will continue outsourcing and using H1B labor. These lost jobs actually are the consumers of their own or customers products.. It is a game of financial musical chairs and at the end those at the VERY VERY top will have theirs and the rest will fend for the crumbs. The race to the bottom continues.

Right there are so many non-manufacturing companies outsourcing, especially small businesses that are the ones most injured by the tax hike.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Right there are so many non-manufacturing companies outsourcing, especially small businesses that are the ones most injured by the tax hike.

Dude... You been locked up in a barn or something? Anything white collar non upper management is a target for outsourcing and has been. Tech Jobs, accounting, drafting, engineering, help desk, Architectural , medical billing even ****ing XRAY Techs the list goes on and on and on. The dirty little secret that you don't hear about it in the media is because they are amongst the biggest culprits.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dude... You been locked up in a barn or something? Anything white collar non upper management is a target for outsourcing and has been. Tech Jobs, accounting, drafting, engineering, help desk, Architectural , medical billing even ****ing XRAY Techs the list goes on and on and on. The dirty little secret that you don't hear about it in the media is because they are amongst the biggest culprits.

Secret outsourcing? Perhaps you should ask yourself why these compaies are doing so. Perhaps the already excessive tax rates in the US as well as the upcoming health care requirements and Sarbannes-Oxley regulations are making it too expensive to do business in this country? Of course we should raise taxes and make it worse...