Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

I would have, too, instead of voting Socialist. Couldn't stomach Kerry. Watching the Democrats run a faux-blue blood from Massachusetts who didn't have the strength of his convictions regarding Vietnam made me a little sick. It's one of the few times I knowingly tossed away my vote. There's some shit you just can't eat.

I don't consider voting your conscience tossing your vote away, most states already have most elections decided effectively well before the election anyway, but fair enough.

I'll leave you alone after this, but I can't help but say you did the very thing that makes me crazy in the Ron Paul thread. You listed a bunch of things you liked about him, including making a special effort to point out his vote on DADT, and yet nowhere in that post do you counter that enthusiasm with acknowledging his stance on DOMA. I mean, you touched on gay rights, but that somehow slipped your mind. That's my problem. I don't mind seeing you discuss the areas where you agree with Paul, nor do I particularly mind watching you kick Obama in the balls -- one of my favorite pastimes -- but when I see you repeatedly hold the two to a different standard, it frustrates me. And then I get all dicky.

So, sorry for getting all dicky on you. But next time you're praising Paul for his vote on DADT, you might also mention his stance on DOMA. If not, for sure someone's going to mention it for you.

It didn't slip my mind, I noticed Speculawyer and Spokker (posts 405 and 406 of the thread) have already mentioned that issue, I didn't want to be overly redundant. I also tend to think GAF knows why they oppose him, I wanted to give more of a supporter's view. I guess I wasn't particularly nuanced and maybe I should have said that, I certainly haven't backed away from disagreeing with Paul on gay rights, abortion, or immigration but I thought it was covered adequately in the thread that I didn't need a post laying out pros and cons any more than you'd expect a critic of his to always say something nice about him.

 

[Diablos]

I don't understand; do Democrats, particularly those deep within fund-raising activities and such really believe Hillary would have been able to do much better? I swear, people act like she was going to be the next FDR. I'm pretty sure her Presidency would have been quite similar to Obama's. Even Terry McAuliffe, who was basically the biggest Hillary Clinton fanboy during the legendary 2008 Democratic primary season, is 100% echoing the Obama camp's sentiments that GOP obstruction is killing any form of of progress, be it a product of the left, right, or center.

There still would have been a tea party, too. That was pretty much destiny when you see how organized the grassroots operation was from the beginning. To think otherwise is just a bunch of bullocks; it's much easier to blame Obama for being weak, but that's what the opposition wants you to think.

The GOP hijacked much of the Obama Presidency through complete manipulation of Congressional procedure. It would have been just as easy to do it to Hillary. They are getting exactly what they want; they are outright blocking anything he tries to pass, even Republican ideas, because a Democratic President is on board with it. This constant annihilation of anything put forward in the name of actually improving our economy (or, well, anything) has driven most Americans to the breaking point; the electorate is frustrated and scared and they are starting to take it out on the last person who deserves the blame: The President. This is exaclty what the GOP has been trying to do and it looks like they've pulled it off. Americans will only stay mad at one group of people in our grand political drama for so long until they deposit their blame elsewhere. What the GOP has pulled off combined with tea party extremists shitting up the process even more is undeniably unprecedented. Say what you will about the Clintons, but even grandaddy Bill never would've been able to deal with these morally/ethically bankrupt extremists in Congress.

Rove, as much as I hate him, did mention a totally valid yet harsh reality: Obama has already hit 39% (twice) in Gallup polling, and no President has been able to get re-elected after their approval has dropped so low at this point in their first term, not since 1948 at least. He also thinks Palin is running, which I think would help Obama, especially if she wins the nom. Regardless, Obama's re-election prospects are looking really dim. It's going to take a miracle for him to get re-elected at this point.

I hope Democrats can hold the Senate and/or anti-tea party angst drives out enough Republicans in the House to allow for the Democrats to take it back. GOP President with Democrats retaining a majority in the House and/or Senate is looking like best case scenario.

Man, this country's political will all-around has been a zombie since 2000 and it continues to get worse. I don't see an indication that we'll ever get a strong dose of sanity in Washington across the board ever again. How sad.

I feel so bad for Obama. He's aging like crazy, which is typical for all Presidents, but his seems to be far more accelerated, as though he's already served two really tough terms. He went from the face of hope and change to the face of perhaps the biggest Presidential victim of character assassination in US politics. He just looks absolutely miserable.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I was part of the anti-war left against Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was against it because I didn't believe a word that came out of Bush administration. The weapons inspectors time and time again return empty handed, and the flimsy connection between Al Qaida and Iraq made absolutely no sense. All in all, this was appearing as a design on a sovereign country. Dick Cheney and Bush's oil background made things look even more machiavellian. I believed Saddam when he told Dan Rather that there's nothing in his stockpile, and that he's willing to talk to anyone face to face. Those aren't the words of a mad kim jong il type nutball dictator.

But even before the operation against Gaddafi began, I was shouting from rooftops for a UN intervention (not a sole US intervention, mind you) because Gaddafi was waging war against his own people and was going to perform a massacre within hours. He did not respond like Ben Ali or Mubarak. He went in full assault mode: bombing of peaceful rallies. I didn't want a repeat of Rwanda or Bosnia Herzegovina. I did not change my views on military intervention after Odyssey Dawn started, just to side with Obama. If you want to call me a hypocrite, go for it. I believe there is time and place for the world to use it's power for good. Iraq wasn't it. If we had McCain as a president, I'd have called for the exact same thing. Me and millions of others like me.

.

 

[leroidys]

I'm not necessarily speaking about congressmen (who pretty much endorsed Bush's wars as quickly as they WOULD likely have endorsed Libya if given the opportunity to). I was speaking specifically of the anti-war left which used to hold MASSIVE anti-war protests over Iraq and Afghanistan. More people have died in Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's entire presidency. Been to any anti-war protests lately?

The American people are lazy and have a short attention span. I think it has more to do with the timeline of the war than who is in control. The Afghanistan war is more unpopular now than it ever was under Bush, why is it incumbent solely on Democrats to have anti-war protests?

I STRONGLY, opposed the Iraq war, but I did support the surge, even while the Democrats characterized it as a warmongers hubris. We had the chance to bring a country back from the brink and spares millions of some of the terrors that tens of thousands had already experienced. This was bigger than politics for me then, and was the case with the NATO intervention in Libya as well. Of course, now the real work begins for the Libyans to build a new country. Odds are stacked against them to form a functioning, modern government, but we shall see how it goes.

Or Darfur, or Somalia... and so on. There will always be massacres, and always another around the corner. There was nothing particularly special or unique about this one except France was screaming for the intervention this time because of their oil interests, which attracted more media coverage.

I don't... what?

As for the Hillary backlash backlash, I would have preferred her as executive because she has much more and more useful experience in politics, would have been less likely to bring in a largely incompetent strategy and PR team, had far more connections in Washington, wouldn't have had the same problems with idiots arguing about her legitimacy, would have set VP Obama up well for a 2016 ticket (seriously, who the hell are they going to run?) , and, yes, she is willing to be a bit vicious.

 

[Oblivion]

Seriously, what the hell is Jon Huntsman?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidwh...inks-jon-jr-would-be-a-wonderful-president/2/

 

[Puddles]

So maybe someone can help me out with this.

I'm working on the issue of tax rates on the wealthy and on capital gains.

Can any of you think of any instance, any at all, where a business owner wouldn't expand where an opportunity for profitable expansion clearly existed because he wasn't sure if his income tax rate would be 35% or 39.6% the next year?

On that note, can you think of any instance where an investor or firm wouldn't invest because they weren't sure if the capital gains rate would be 15% or 20%?

Go wild with this one; play devil's advocate all you want.

 

[eznark]

Just listened to an interview Reince Priebus gave to a radio show in Milwaukee. Usual pap and nonsense, however they touched on Paul Ryan entering the race. While Priebus said he had no new information and "your guess was as good as his" it certainly sounded to me like he thought Ryan would be entering the race specifically noting that Clinton didn't enter the fray in 1996 until October of 1995.

That would make things significantly more interesting. I'm already kind of bored with Perry, who is far more Bachman-like than I imagined.

 

[Blergmeister]

That would make things significantly more interesting. I'm already kind of bored with Perry, who is far more Bachman-like than I imagined.

I've actually found Perry to be more entertaining than Bachman! After he announced his candidacy and Poli-GAF went into panic, every day has provided delicious fodder against his campaign. We've had false attacks using rhetoric coming straight out of chain mail letters, calling federal officials treasonous when doing a standard part of their job, and refusing to answer to his positions from his campaign book by stuffing his face full of food! Seems like every day there is something delicious.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I think it's absurd to think that Paul Ryan would be getting into the race at this point, but Nate Silver seems to think there's room for more GOP candidates. I think Ryan should be looking at 2020. It's far too early for him.

 

[empty vessel]

I think it's absurd to think that Paul Ryan would be getting into the race at this point, but Nate Silver seems to think there's room for more GOP candidates. I think Ryan should be looking at 2020. It's far too early for him.

I would like to think that by 2020, Ryan's political breed will be extinct on the national stage.

 

[eznark]

I think it's absurd to think that Paul Ryan would be getting into the race at this point, but Nate Silver seems to think there's room for more GOP candidates. I think Ryan should be looking at 2020. It's far too early for him.

Like I said last week, I think 2016 is his goal. This will just be a fundraising exercise.

 

[Cyan]

So maybe someone can help me out with this.

I'm working on the issue of tax rates on the wealthy and on capital gains.

Can any of you think of any instance, any at all, where a business owner wouldn't expand where an opportunity for profitable expansion clearly existed because he wasn't sure if his income tax rate would be 35% or 39.6% the next year?

On that note, can you think of any instance where an investor or firm wouldn't invest because they weren't sure if the capital gains rate would be 15% or 20%?

Go wild with this one; play devil's advocate all you want.

Sure. Let's say the business owner or investor believed that a tax increase would have a negative effect on the expansion/investment. Depending on their opinion of the likelihood of that tax increase, then, they might well decide that there's a negative expected value to expanding/investing at that point in time.

 

[Puddles]

Sure. Let's say the business owner or investor believed that a tax increase would have a negative effect on the expansion/investment. Depending on their opinion of the likelihood of that tax increase, then, they might well decide that there's a negative expected value to expanding/investing at that point in time.

I still don't see it. The tax would be after expenses, either on the salary the owner pays himself, or on profits from the investment.

61.4% of x million dollars is almost as good as 65%. 80% is almost as good as 85%. Either way, if it's profitable, it's profitable.

I can't think of a situation where I'd say "Fuck $800k, I'm not going forward with this unless I can make $850k."

 

[eznark]

I still don't see it. The tax would be after expenses, either on the salary the owner pays himself, or on profits from the investment.

61.4% of x million dollars is almost as good as 65%. 80% is almost as good as 85%. Either way, if it's profitable, it's profitable.

I can't think of a situation where I'd say "Fuck $800k, I'm not going forward with this unless I can make $850k."

You're making a number of assumptions, the most glaring of which being that any expansion is "clearly profitable." It's rare that you can know something with such certitude that a 4.6% decrease in margin is going to have zero impact. That margin shaving adds additional uncertainty to any potential profitability. You are increasing the absolute known cost on generally unknowable future revenues.

Does it necessarily make a difference? I think there are studies that show yes and no depending on what you want the study to say. If I am looking at a project, we absolutely factor in taxes and tax trajectory when deciding feasibility. They exist, you have to.

 

[frankthurk]

I still don't see it. The tax would be after expenses, either on the salary the owner pays himself, or on profits from the investment.

61.4% of x million dollars is almost as good as 65%. 80% is almost as good as 85%. Either way, if it's profitable, it's profitable.

I can't think of a situation where I'd say "Fuck $800k, I'm not going forward with this unless I can make $850k."

I think the argument might be more that not just the owner, but someone with money looking to invest it into a business (maybe even just through purchasing stock) would be less likely to do so if they are going to be taxed higher... it might skew the risk/reward so that they are less likely to take the risk. Thus businesses find it harder to find funding and thus it's harder for them to expand and hire new workers.

The other side I'm seeing though is that in my opinion what really drives businesses to grow is a growth in demand not just easier funding. If demand increases business will find a way. The rich are not driving demand nearly as much as the larger masses of non-rich do.

 

[empty vessel]

You're making a number of assumptions, the most glaring of which being that any expansion is "clearly profitable." It's rare that you can know something with such certitude that a 4.6% decrease in margin is going to have zero impact. That margin shaving adds additional uncertainty to any potential profitability. You are increasing the absolute known cost on generally unknowable future revenues.

Does it necessarily make a difference? I think there are studies that show yes and no depending on what you want the study to say. If I am looking at a project, we absolutely factor in taxes and tax trajectory when deciding feasibility. They exist, you have to.

The taxes that matter to any, e.g., sole proprietor, are strictly the taxes on other people. My taxes don't matter a wit. If I can increase net income, I do, and I do so without regard to what my personal effective tax rate is.

The reason other people's taxes matter is because that will affect my gross revenue. If they have less to spend generally, then they have less to spend on my business. So overall tax rates may affect the growth of my business, but my own tax rate won't. This is also what makes the distribution of taxes so important. Regressive tax systems sap demand (and growth) by taking money out of the hands of people buying basic goods and services. Only luxury good and service providers (e.g., yacht makers) benefit from regressive taxes or are especially harmed by high taxes on the rich. This is obviously simplified somewhat, but it's sound as far as I can tell.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I still don't see it. The tax would be after expenses, either on the salary the owner pays himself, or on profits from the investment.

61.4% of x million dollars is almost as good as 65%. 80% is almost as good as 85%. Either way, if it's profitable, it's profitable.

I can't think of a situation where I'd say "Fuck $800k, I'm not going forward with this unless I can make $850k."

I think you missed his point. It's not merely that the tax would reduce the business owner's profit, but it might potentially impact his ability to generate that profit. I can't generate a good hypothetical about that, but it's a reasonable point. And like eznark said, there are margins to be considered.

 

[eznark]

The taxes that matter to any, e.g., sole proprietor, are strictly the taxes on other people. My taxes don't matter a wit. If I can increase net income, I do, and I do so without regard to what my personal effective tax rate is.

That's not particularly true, especially if the company is at all forward thinking. Not all expansions are equal and there is an opportunity (and effort) cost associated with undertaking a small margin expansion today for x% NI bump as opposed to holding off, operating at today's level and waiting for an appropriate x%+y NI increase down the road.

Capital and capacity restrict real expansion. If a company (especially a sole prop) jumps at every tiny revenue bumping endeavor they are unlikely to be positioned properly to take advantage of real growth opportunities.

Sure, but what does that have to do with taxes (other than considerations of other people's taxes)?

Higher taxes reduce the real impact of expansionary endeavors. If I am going to make 5% fewer dollars on this expansion it is potentially less desirable to me.

 

[empty vessel]

That's not particularly true, especially if the company is at all forward thinking. Not all expansions are equal and there is an opportunity (and effort) cost associated with undertaking a small margin expansion today for x% NI bump as opposed to holding off, operating at today's level and waiting for an appropriate x%+y NI increase down the road.

Sure, but what does that have to do with taxes (other than considerations of other people's taxes)?

 

[Gaborn]

You're making a number of assumptions, the most glaring of which being that any expansion is "clearly profitable." It's rare that you can know something with such certitude that a 4.6% decrease in margin is going to have zero impact. That margin shaving adds additional uncertainty to any potential profitability. You are increasing the absolute known cost on generally unknowable future revenues.

Does it necessarily make a difference? I think there are studies that show yes and no depending on what you want the study to say. If I am looking at a project, we absolutely factor in taxes and tax trajectory when deciding feasibility. They exist, you have to.

Plus you can't forget that if you expand the business that likely means an expanded payroll that can further add to your costs, sometimes significantly so (particularly if your business offers any sort of on the job training for the new positions. That's even assuming that the profit margin you project is sufficient to justify the risk.

Ideally you want to have a very conservative estimate for your profit margin so in a down economy you're not taking a huge risk and in a booming economy you can get larger rewards perhaps justifying even FURTHER expansions of the business - or simply re-investing in the existing businesses infrastructure depending on the nature of the business. Remember the "profit" is another way of saying YOUR take home pay.

It's nice to say a business is pulling in $2500 a day in sales for example, but if the items being sold cost $1000, and you have a staff pulling in another $300 (in salary plus health care costs say), and say the government "only" is taking 35% off the top, that's $875 that would be $325 in take home pay a day. And your business would be pulling in $650,000 in revenue on those figures so it WOULD be taxed at that higher rate. Sure it's "only" 4.6% more you're talking about charging him in taxes but that's the difference between $325 a day in take home pay and $210 a day. Is it a tiny amount of money? I guess not, it's not exactly a poor man's salary, that's about $26 an hour, but it's not exactly what I think of being "rich" either.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I think you missed his point. It's not merely that the tax would reduce the business owner's profit, but it might potentially impact his ability to generate that profit. I can't generate a good hypothetical about that, but it's a reasonable point. And like eznark said, there are margins to be considered.

The tax is placed on profits. They only determine the level of profitability. I believe at the specific margins we're discussing, only profits over $250k.

 

[eznark]

Sure, but what does that have to do with taxes (other than considerations of other people's taxes)?

The other fairly large impact the tax rate has is on cash flow projections. If you are looking to finance a project and are adding an additional x% tax per revenue dollar, your cash flow position is weakened making the loan less desirable to potential lenders/investors.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The other fairly large impact the tax rate has is on cash flow projections. If you are looking to finance a project and are adding an additional x% tax per revenue dollar, your cash flow position is weakened making the loan less desirable to potential lenders/investors.

All this is true in the abstract, but I think we need to zero in on the actual percentages here. A 3% marginal tax rate increase on profits over $250k is simply not going to determine the fate of many investment projects. Especially given how few small businesses actually have net income at that level. Certainly, we didn't see benefit when the rates were lowered. No reason to expect a throttling effect restoring them.

 

[Puddles]

Plus you can't forget that if you expand the business that likely means an expanded payroll that can further add to your costs, sometimes significantly so (particularly if your business offers any sort of on the job training for the new positions. That's even assuming that the profit margin you project is sufficient to justify the risk.

Ideally you want to have a very conservative estimate for your profit margin so in a down economy you're not taking a huge risk and in a booming economy you can get larger rewards perhaps justifying even FURTHER expansions of the business - or simply re-investing in the existing businesses infrastructure depending on the nature of the business. Remember the "profit" is another way of saying YOUR take home pay.

It's nice to say a business is pulling in $2500 a day in sales for example, but if the items being sold cost $1000, and you have a staff pulling in another $300 (in salary plus health care costs say), and say the government "only" is taking 35% off the top, that's $875 that would be $325 in take home pay a day. And your business would be pulling in $650,000 in revenue on those figures so it WOULD be taxed at that higher rate. Sure it's "only" 4.6% more you're talking about charging him in taxes but that's the difference between $325 a day in take home pay and $210 a day. Is it a tiny amount of money? I guess not, it's not exactly a poor man's salary, that's about $26 an hour, but it's not exactly what I think of being "rich" either.

Yeah, but we're not really talking about increasing taxes on people making that kind of income.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Less than 5% of small businesses who file under sub-chapter S makes more than $200,000.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's nice to say a business is pulling in $2500 a day in sales for example, but if the items being sold cost $1000, and you have a staff pulling in another $300 (in salary plus health care costs say), and say the government "only" is taking 35% off the top, that's $875 that would be $325 in take home pay a day. And your business would be pulling in $650,000 in revenue on those figures so it WOULD be taxed at that higher rate. Sure it's "only" 4.6% more you're talking about charging him in taxes but that's the difference between $325 a day in take home pay and $210 a day. Is it a tiny amount of money? I guess not, it's not exactly a poor man's salary, that's about $26 an hour, but it's not exactly what I think of being "rich" either.

Huh?

If revenues are $2500, and expenses are $1300, that's $1200 in gross profit. 35% of that is $420.

You're taking home $780 in a day after taxes. In a year, you earn $202800 after taxes, even if we're tlaking a 35% effective tax rate (which is much, much higher than the current tax rates, btw)

 

[eznark]

All this is true in the abstract, but I think we need to zero in on the actual percentages here. A 3% marginal tax rate increase on profits over $250k is simply not going to determine the fate of many investment projects. Especially given how few small businesses actually have net income at that level. Certainly, we didn't see benefit when the rates were lowered. No reason to expect a throttling effect restoring them.

Well, the question was asked in the abstract so I was answering as such.

 

[Flo_Evans]

So maybe someone can help me out with this.

I'm working on the issue of tax rates on the wealthy and on capital gains.

Can any of you think of any instance, any at all, where a business owner wouldn't expand where an opportunity for profitable expansion clearly existed because he wasn't sure if his income tax rate would be 35% or 39.6% the next year?

On that note, can you think of any instance where an investor or firm wouldn't invest because they weren't sure if the capital gains rate would be 15% or 20%?

Go wild with this one; play devil's advocate all you want.

lol hell no.

I am just a small business owner, but taxes on profits is the least of my worries. Often it is better to re-invest profits than pay tax on them.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. A business will try and make as much money as possible, then try and reduce it's tax burden. No one (in their right mind) goes out and says well I am only going to try and make 100k this year so I don't have to pay as much taxes! You make 500k and use whatever accounting tricks you can to make it so you only pay taxes on 100k profit.

 

[Gaborn]

Huh?

If revenues are $2500, and expenses are $1300, that's $1200 in gross profit. 35% of that is $420.

You're taking home $780 in a day after taxes. In a year, you earn $202800 after taxes, even if we're tlaking a 35% effective tax rate (which is much, much higher than the current tax rates, btw)

Ok, you're right that was a bad example, not sure why I was taking the income tax off the gross.

I should say though that most businesses don't have to deal with just federal taxes, they have state taxes to deal with, property taxes, utilities, etc etc etc etc

 

[ToxicAdam]

Just listened to an interview Reince Priebus ... he thought Ryan would be entering the race specifically noting that Clinton didn't enter the fray in 1996 until October of 1995.
.

It was actually April of 1995. And it was big news because it was historically early compared to all other past incumbents.

Why would Reince even use an incumbent President as an example anyways? Stupid.

 

[Puddles]

Well, the question was asked in the abstract so I was answering as such.

Thanks for your answer.

I did phrase it as an abstract question, but I'm actually trying to find a concrete example of this. Lately I've been trying to give every argument the benefit of the doubt. If I could find a few actual cases of business owners/investors not going through with a venture of some kind because they weren't sure if the Bush tax cuts were going to expire or not, I'd give a lot more credence to the Republican argument.

Obviously it's no one's job to supply examples like this, but I'm wondering if anyone in this thread has heard of such a case.

 

[eznark]

It was actually April of 1995. And it was big news because it was historically early compared to all other past incumbents.

Why would Reince even use an incumbent President as an example anyways? Stupid.

My fault, 1992. Well, the 1992 campaign, so I guess Clinton entered in October of 91 which is late? No idea, it was his example.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Ok, you're right that was a bad example, not sure why I was taking the income tax off the gross.

I should say though that most businesses don't have to deal with just federal taxes, they have state taxes to deal with, property taxes, utilities, etc etc etc etc

and your point is????

We are talking about increasing the marginal tax rate on post-deduction profits in excess of $250,000 a year. utilities are included in expenses already and property taxes are deductible for purposes of federal taxation

 

[Flo_Evans]

Ok, you're right that was a bad example, not sure why I was taking the income tax off the gross.

I should say though that most businesses don't have to deal with just federal taxes, they have state taxes to deal with, property taxes, utilities, etc etc etc etc

All of which are deducted from the profits you pay federal tax on...

edit: beaten.

Not to call you out Gabron, but I see this "joe the plumber" type of tax accounting way to often. Business tax is way more complicated than most people understand. I don't even fully understand it myself, I have an account that looks at our income/profit and figures out ways to reduce our tax. How you are incorporated, cash or accrual accounting, how you pay yourself out of the profits (W-2 or dividend).

So many just take the net and subtract +/-35% when making silly internet arguments. This is not how it works.

 

[Gaborn]

and your point is????

We are talking about increasing the marginal tax rate on post-deduction profits in excess of $250,000 a year. utilities are included in expenses already and property taxes are deductible for purposes of federal taxation

You are correct and I am incorrect. *skulks away*

Spoiler

not sure what I was thinking there, total mental lapse I guess

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't know what skulking is, but if you're sulking, let me cheer you up with a cookie

*gives Gaborn a cookie*

 

[HamPster PamPster]

All this tax rate talk is acting like people are rational

Seems like a pretty big assumption IMO. I'm sure plenty of small business owners make decisions based on future tax rates even if they shouldn't or those tax rates wouldn't effect them or their target market

 

[Flo_Evans]

All this tax rate talk is acting like people are rational

Seems like a pretty big assumption IMO. I'm sure plenty of small business owners make decisions based on future tax rates even if they shouldn't or those tax rates wouldn't effect them or their target market

Seems like a pretty big assumption IMO.

 

[Gaborn]

I don't know what skulking is, but if you're sulking, let me cheer you up with a cookie

*gives Gaborn a cookie*

skulk is a perfectly good word that is perfectly wrong for what I meant. *takes the cookie and runs*

 

[Puddles]

Another issue I was looking at was the claim that the PPACA was destroying jobs with the small business shared responsibility mandate.

As I see it, if an employer can only run a business and generate a profit by not providing insurance to his/her employees, one of two things (or both) are true. Either A) the business plan isn't very good, or B) we should really scrap employer-based health insurance altogether and go with single-payer.

If we really have a systematic problem where a significant percentage of small businesses find it difficult to operate while contributing towards their employees' healthcare plans, then B looks pretty fucking likely.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

I don't know what skulking is

Skulking is to conceal one's self for nefarious purposes, or just to move around in a way to keep from being detected. I see it used most often to refer to predators on the hunt, or people looking to steal cookies.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Another issue I was looking at was the claim that the PPACA was destroying jobs with the small business shared responsibility mandate.

As I see it, if an employer can only run a business and generate a profit by not providing insurance to his/her employees, one of two things (or both) are true. Either A) the business plan isn't very good, or B) we should really scrap employer-based health insurance altogether and go with single-payer.

If we really have a systematic problem where a significant percentage of small businesses find it difficult to operate while contributing towards their employees' healthcare plans, then B looks pretty fucking likely.

There are exemptions and credits for small business.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=223666,00.html

I for example (and again this is for my accountant to figure out) will probably get a tax credit under the plan! woohoo.

Businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt, but get a credit if they do provide insurance.

 

[Puddles]

So "Obamacare is killing jobs!" is FUD, then?

 

[Flo_Evans]

So "Obamacare is killing jobs!" is FUD, then?

Pretty much. Weak consumer demand is killing jobs.

 

[besada]

skulk is a perfectly good word that is perfectly wrong for what I meant. *takes the cookie and runs*

I think you were looking for "slinking away."

 

[mckmas8808]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

The more I hear and read about Rick Perry, the more I realize how dumb his policies are that he believes in. To me he's flirting close to Bachmann when it comes to policy beliefs.

 

[Flo_Evans]

The more I hear and read about Rick Perry, the more I realize how dumb his policies are that he believes in. To me he's flirting close to Bachmann when it comes to policy beliefs.

Why do conservatives hate the judiciary so much? The entire idea of the supreme court is that they ARN'T up for re-election, so they will not base their decisions on the fear of being replaced.

 

[Klocker]

Why do conservatives hate the judiciary so much?

because their decisions (in a perfect world) are to be based on compassionate, rational thinking without biblical inferences being read into the Constitution during said decision making process.

 

[besada]

Two pieces from ProPublica:

They're looking for questions concerning the FAQ they're doing about Libya. They already have some questions and answers, but they're looking for more. Go give them some good questions, so I can read the answers later:
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/key-questions-about-libya

Secondly, they have a piece up about economic myths, which the guys working on the site yet to be named should look at:
http://www.propublica.org/article/economic-myths-we-separate-fact-from-fiction

The rest of you may find it useful/interesting, too. Very nicely put together with concise debunking.

Oh, and they have a reading guide for Perry:
http://www.propublica.org/article/our-reading-guide-on-gov.-rick-perry-and-his-record

 

[eznark]

Why do conservatives hate the judiciary so much? The entire idea of the supreme court is that they ARN'T up for re-election, so they will not base their decisions on the fear of being replaced.

To be fair, his proposal (if you want to consider an idea he tossed out as an actual proposal) doesn't sound like direct election, just that Judges would only be allowed to serve for a limited time. I have no idea how he thinks this makes them more accountable.