Support NeoGAF

[RiccochetJ]

Have you worked for or been a part of a small company? This is almost especially not true with them. They'll work people to the bone until demand forces them to hire someone. They hire and expand to what they need. More tax cuts aren't going to get them to hire if they don't need to already.

Also, this 65 year study found tax cuts don't lead to economic growth

You linked the Atlantic....

And I do work for a small company and the taxes play a pivotal part of how we're going to hire. If all of a sudden we have less money because of taxes, not only are we not going to hire, we might let people go unless we can grow.

edit:

Snce you seem to have missed it the first time:
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=43034899

(this is about your original point that the individual tax rate hikes would impact 'most small and mid sized businesses''... Which they wouldn't, regardless of how many "nuh uhs" you give me.)

I'm unfamiliar with pass-through corporations. How does it work? Are they susceptible to the corporate tax rate?

 

[pigeon]

You linked the Atlantic....

And I do work for a small company and the taxes play a pivotal part of how we're going to hire. If all of a sudden we have less money because of taxes, not only are we not going to hire, we might let people go unless we can grow.

What's wrong with the Atlantic? What sources would you trust more?

The study is from the Congressional Research Service.

 

[gkryhewy]

I'm unfamiliar with pass-through corporations. How does it work? Are they susceptible to the corporate tax rate?

Pass-through corporations are those that prefer to be taxed as a collection of individuals rather than as a single entity, and are consequently the only "small businesses" impacted by the individual tax rate changes that are at issue. You said originally that most small and midsized businesses file at the individual rate, which is not true. I really suggest you read the slate article I linked if you actually want to understand this and not just argue about it.

 

[Zabka]

You linked the Atlantic....

And I do work for a small company and the taxes play a pivotal part of how we're going to hire. If all of a sudden we have less money because of taxes, not only are we not going to hire, we might let people go unless we can grow.

Not sure how this jives. If you're hiring people you reduce taxable revenue.

 

[RDreamer]

You linked the Atlantic....

Oh don't be silly. You can also read a piece by the New York Times on that study. Or you could just read the study itself, which they link to in the article I posted

 

[The Technomancer]

Not sure how this jives. If you're hiring people you reduce taxable revenue.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well but since I have very minimal practical experience I didn't want to speak up.

 

[RiccochetJ]

What's wrong with the Atlantic? What sources would you trust more?

The study is from the Congressional Research Service.

None tbh. I try to read everything and hope to figure out the reality of things.

I have the Atlantic on the same level as Mother Jones, Fox News, and the Daily Kos. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Edit: I'm going to try and respond to everyone. I hope you're not insulted if I skip over you.

 

[RDreamer]

So apparently Mitt is flipping and flopping back and forth on abortion stuff

Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

This is becoming quite a pattern. Romney says moderate stance, then campaign says opposite thing hours later...

 

[Black Mamba]

None tbh. I try to read everything and hope to figure out the reality of things.

I have the Atlantic on the same level as Mother Jones, Fox News, and the Daily Kos. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Edit: I'm going to try and respond to everyone. I hope you're not insulted if I skip over you.

I have a question for you. If tax cuts spur growth, why is it that the tax cuts under Bush have spurned some of the lowest job growth, business investment, and gdp growth on US record?

So apparently Mitt is flipping and flopping back and forth on abortion stuff

It's obvious going to say everything he can to the middle voter and let his campaign take it back for his conservative base (who pay attention to the news while the middle voter does not).

he's literally adopted a campaign to lie as much as humanly possible.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I have a question for you. If tax cuts spur growth, why is it that the tax cuts under Bush have spurned some of the lowest job growth, business investment, and gdp growth on US record?

Because somehow you're directly associating government with the free market?

 

[Half and half]

The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

Ooowww. My head.

I'm not even sure how to define Mitt's positions anymore.

 

[pigeon]

None tbh. I try to read everything and hope to figure out the reality of things.

I have the Atlantic on the same level as Mother Jones, Fox News, and the Daily Kos. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

No worries -- you're free to have however bad an opinion of the Atlantic as you want to I definitely don't put the Atlantic on the same level as Mother Jones or even TPM, both of which are clearly writing with what you might call a policy goal. But that's just me.

 

[dramatis]

And here's our focal point of our debate! I believe that tax cuts will embolden companies to grow. More money to burn will mean that they can invest in growth. You think it's stagnant. I think you're correct in some instances.

In fact, you could also make a reverse argument to yours. If the government is going to take a large portion of your profits you have two options: You can reinvest in innovative ideas in order to try and make more money in the long run, or you can forfeit that money to the government.

I think what you are missing, every time, is that businesses do not grow without demand. Companies do not grow because they have a lot of money, they grow because they have a lot of demand. With a tax cut, a small business owner could reinvest in his company, but that doesn't guarantee his business has more business to do. So it would actually be in his interest to save the money until demand increases, then spend it, because it's less risky and by then the return is greater.

You can say, "Well, doesn't that mean the money from the tax cut will eventually grow the economy?" Sure. But between this and say, something that creates demand (unemployment benefits) thus also growing companies (with faster effect) and a wider base of people who benefit, which one is the better idea?

You're mired in hypothetical situations when the Bush tax cuts have long since unraveled these hypotheses. The Bush tax cuts were across the board, and small businesses don't seem to have grown much.

I have the Atlantic on the same level as Mother Jones, Fox News, and the Daily Kos. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

The Atlantic and Mother Jones should be sitting much higher than Daily Kos and then at the bottom of a chasm is Fox News. There's no question that many publications have slants, but Fox News is its own category of low—and it is the lowest.

 

[Black Mamba]

Because somehow you're directly associating government with the free market?

But what dynamics in the market have changed that this time cutting taxes will spur growth?

 

[el retorno]

So apparently Mitt is flipping and flopping back and forth on abortion stuff



This is becoming quite a pattern. Romney says moderate stance, then campaign says opposite thing hours later...

He knows what he's doing. He speaks to Iowa voters in the newspaper saying he'll be moderate and then they walk it back to the base (national review), swing voters aren't going to read that as much.

The scary thing is I don't know what his real views are.

Edit: I guess I completly misses black mamba's post.

 

[RDreamer]

It's obvious going to say everything he can to the middle voter and let his campaign take it back for his conservative base (who pay attention to the news while the middle voter does not).

he's literally adopted a campaign to lie as much as humanly possible.

At this point I think it's clear this is an actual campaign strategy. He's done this quite a few times I can remember. It's kind of crazy that our media is so bad they're not making a big deal of this.

I'm being serious here. Has any campaign in history ever lied this much?

 

[RiccochetJ]

But what dynamics in the market have changed that this time cutting taxes will spur growth?

The market has to be open with logical oversight. That's the government's job and that's where the money should be spent. Loaners are handcuffed because they don't know what is a reasonable risk. Right now they don't know when it comes to the government and fines.

Everything sounds good on paper but it's a mess in the real world.

 

[Black Mamba]

The market has to be open with logical oversight. That's the government's job and that's where the money should be spent. Loaners are handcuffed because they don't know what is a reasonable risk. Right now they don't know when it comes to the government and fines.

Everything sounds good on paper but it's a mess in the real world.

You didn't really answer my question. It's one thing to argue "if the market was different, the tax cuts would have effect Y."

But I'm asking you is currently, why will tax cuts change things?

 

[RustyNails]

At this point I think it's clear this is an actual campaign strategy. He's done this quite a few times I can remember. It's kind of crazy that our media is so bad they're not making a big deal of this.

I'm being serious here. Has any campaign in history ever lied this much?

Well good thing Jim Lehrer brought this important topic up and asked Romney what his position is infront of 67 million people.

 

[CygnusXS]

At this point I think it's clear this is an actual campaign strategy. He's done this quite a few times I can remember. It's kind of crazy that our media is so bad they're not making a big deal of this.

I'm being serious here. Has any campaign in history ever lied this much?

To be fair, Maddow has hit on this a lot.

 

[Cheebo]

The market has to be open with logical oversight. That's the government's job and that's where the money should be spent. Loaners are handcuffed because they don't know what is a reasonable risk. Right now they don't know when it comes to the government and fines.

Everything sounds good on paper but it's a mess in the real world.

Why was the economy booming with the higher tax rates for the rich in the 90s? The rate Obama wants to go back to. Business did amazing with those Clinton era tax rates.

 

[Black Mamba]

To be fair, Maddow has hit on this a lot.

That will really hit hard on Romney's liberal constituency.

 

[gkryhewy]

The market has to be open with logical oversight. That's the government's job and that's where the money should be spent. Loaners are handcuffed because they don't know what is a reasonable risk. Right now they don't know when it comes to the government and fines.

Everything sounds good on paper but it's a mess in the real world.

So the reason why the tax cuts were ineffective was because government creates too much uncertainty... So we should cut taxes more? I have no idea what case you're trying to make..

 

[RiccochetJ]

You didn't really answer my question. It's one thing to argue "if the market was different, the tax cuts would have effect Y."

But I'm asking you is currently, why will tax cuts change things?

Because it lets companies know what money they're going to have to spend in the next year. Obviously under Obama they will also know. I believe under Romney companies will pursue growth quicker than under an Obama administration.

I think the Obama administration hasn't set out the rules yet and he's had 4 years to make them.

 

[el retorno]

I liked this

“When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”

 

[Byakuya769]

Full of Shit Mitt is at it again. Obama, please gut this guy in front of a national audience instead of rolling over, okay?

 

[Stinkles]

Because it lets companies know what money they're going to have to spend in the next year. Obviously under Obama they will also know. I believe under Romney companies will pursue growth quicker than under an Obama administration.

I think the Obama administration hasn't set out the rules yet and he's had 4 years to make them.

Why would they grow US organizations under an administration that encourages them to offshore and outsource?

 

[Black Mamba]

Because it lets companies know what money they're going to have to spend in the next year. Obviously under Obama they will also know. I believe under Romney companies will pursue growth quicker than under an Obama administration.

I think the Obama administration hasn't set out the rules yet and he's had 4 years to make them.

Obama has tried to set out the rules but the GOP congress has prevented it.

But this doesn't address Bush's tax cuts. Everyone knew the rules and it turned out to be some of the worst growth numbers on record. And Reagan's record was almost as bad after cutting taxes. And we saw the opposite after Bush I and Clinton raised rates.

So I'm trying to figure out why you believe something that all the evidence says the opposite it true.

So I get that knowing what will be the rules will help, regardless who wins. What I don't get is why you think Romney's tax cuts will drive more growth when there is no evidence to back it up.

So I ask again, why didn't we see the growth under Bush? Or Reagan? Or why there is virtually no evidence to support your assertion?

My problem is you're veering on blind faith.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Why would they grow US organizations under an administration that encourages them to offshore and outsource?

Offshore and outsource is feasible when you can provide the same level of service at a lower cost.

Tiny secret... They're moving a lot of support back to stateside because of the backlash.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I read about Obama's strategy on this front as the GOP primaries concluded. His team found it was more effective to make Romeny own the positions he took during the primaries than to contrast them with positions he's held in the past. Calling out his past positions just reminded people he was once a moderate; they wanted to define him as an extremist.

Ok, but Romney's moving towards the center now disregarding his own 47%, Palestinians don't want peace and his extreme views on stopping abortion comments. So surely there must be a contrast ad with his conservative statements showed in the midst of him lying with his new moderate views.

If there's one ad from Bush I remember it's the whole Kerry "I was for it before I was against it" line. Obama needs to paint Romney the same way...a flip-flopping guy that you just can't trust.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Obama has tried to set out the rules but the GOP congress has prevented it.

But this doesn't address Bush's tax cuts. Everyone knew the rules and it turned out to be some of the worst growth numbers on record. And Reagan's record was almost as bad after cutting taxes. And we saw the opposite after Bush I and Clinton raised rates.

So I'm trying to figure out why you believe something that all the evidence says the opposite it true.

So I get that knowing what will be the rules will help, regardless who wins. What I don't get is why you think Romney's tax cuts will drive more growth when there is no evidence to back it up.

So I ask again, why didn't we see the growth under Bush? Or Reagan? Or why there is virtually no evidence to support your assertion?

My problem is you're veering on blind faith.

My problem is that you are too. We have a fundamental difference about the role of government. I believe that the government should let the free market decide while the government should have strict oversight. You think that the government should run it.

Am I wrong?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

My problem is that you are too. We have a fundamental difference about the role of government. I believe that the government should let the free market decide while the government should have strict oversight. You think that the government should run it.

Am I wrong?

This is a contradictory statement. Simply ask yourself what should happen if the free market 'decides' government should have no oversight. Eh, better wording would be to explain how strict oversight does not interfere with the ability of the free market to decide.

 

[Black Mamba]

My problem is that you are too. We have a fundamental difference about the role of government. I believe that the government should let the free market decide while the government should have strict oversight. You think that the government should run it.

Am I wrong?

Very. I don't think the government should "run" the market. I think the gov't should step in to fix market inefficiencies and sometimes to step in because as a society we feel a moral obligation (ie making sure old people aren't on the street dying).

I'm not running on blind faith. I am basing it on studies and my knowledge of economics. Both indicate cutting taxes won't spur much growth and that there are far better options if that is our goal.


When I refer to blind faith I mean your belief tax cuts will spur growth despite all the evidence to the contrary. If we're going to cut taxes, drive up deficits, and not get growth, what is the point?

I'm open to every and all policy choices. But I need good reason to buy into it.

 

[RiccochetJ]

This is a contradictory statement. Simply ask yourself what should happen if the free market 'decides' government should have no oversight.

Why is it a contradictory statement? I want the government to provide oversight while the market does it's thing within the rules?

 

[GTI Guy]

Because it lets companies know what money they're going to have to spend in the next year. Obviously under Obama they will also know. I believe under Romney companies will pursue growth quicker than under an Obama administration.

I think the Obama administration hasn't set out the rules yet and he's had 4 years to make them.

I don't follow your position regarding cutting taxes resulting in companies 'growing'.

Simple example.

You sell widgets
Demand of your product is 10 units per year
You make $100k a year after taxes
You have 10 employees who support those widgets

You have no more additional demand for your widget
You get a tax cut and now you make $120k a year after taxes
You now have $20k more in your pocket

Why would you spend that extra $20k on more employees if your demand remains the same? How does a tax cut 'grow' a company?

 

[CygnusXS]

My problem is that you are too. We have a fundamental difference about the role of government. I believe that the government should let the free market decide while the government should have strict oversight. You think that the government should run it.

Am I wrong?

What's the difference between strict oversight and running it? And wasn't this discussion about taxes? How does letting a tax rate return to a previous level constitute running the economy or preventing the free market from doing whatever it does?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Why is it a contradictory statement? I want the government to provide oversight while the market does it's thing within the rules?

That's exactly the contradiction. The "rules" are an infringement on the free market's ability to operate independent of government interference. Is the government deciding how the free market should operate or is the free market supposed to? Regulations are the government telling the free market what to do.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I don't follow your position regarding cutting taxes resulting in companies 'growing'.

Simple example.

You sell widgets
Demand of your product is 10 units per year
You make $100k a year after taxes
You have 10 employees who support those widgets

You have no more additional demand for your widget
You get a tax cut and now you make $120k a year after taxes
You now have $20k more in your pocket

Why would you spend that extra $20k on more employees if your demand remains the same? How does a tax cut 'grow' a company?

It's fine if you project your next year to be flat. What if demand climbs to 20 widgets because you make an awesome widget?

 

[pigeon]

My problem is that you are too. We have a fundamental difference about the role of government. I believe that the government should let the free market decide while the government should have strict oversight. You think that the government should run it.

Am I wrong?

There are actually pretty few strict socialists on PoliGAF. Most of us probably believe that the free market should decide while the government should have strict oversight. That's essentially the Democratic position. The Republican position, as conventionally expressed, is very similar except without the oversight.

It's fine if you project your next year to be flat. What if demand climbs to 20 widgets because you make an awesome widget?

That's what leverage is for. If your demand climbs, and you don't get a tax cut, are you just going to sit there, or are you going to borrow money so that you can expand to meet demand? Successful businesses will do the latter.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's fine if you project your next year to be flat. What if demand climbs to 20 widgets because you make an awesome widget?

Why would a lack of a tax cut stop you from expanding to fill Demand?

 

[RiccochetJ]

That's exactly the contradiction. The "rules" are an infringement on the free market's ability to operate independent of government interference. Is the government deciding how the free market should operate or is the free market supposed to? Regulations are the government telling the free market what to do.

Yes, it's the government telling the market. It's not running it. Huge difference.

 

[GTI Guy]

It's fine if you project your next year to be flat. What if demand climbs to 20 widgets because you make an awesome widget?

Then you'll hire more people to support demand regardless of a tax cut or not.

 

[Oblivion]

It's obvious going to say everything he can to the middle voter and let his campaign take it back for his conservative base (who pay attention to the news while the middle voter does not).

he's literally adopted a campaign to lie as much as humanly possible.

It's disgusting how utterly cynical this is.

Someone pointed out yesterday that 70 million people watching the debates saw Romney say his plan covered pre-existing conditions. How many people saw the next day's "clarification" from the Romney campaign that said that's pretty much not the case whatsoever?

Dude's a fucking scumbag.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Why would a lack of a tax cut stop you from expanding to fill Demand?

Because you have the ability to hire more people to fulfill that contract. And possibly to take on more contracts for widgets.

 

[RDreamer]

Dude's a fucking scumbag.

It's really amazing. I think the 2 people in politics I respect the least right now are Romney and Ryan. There are loonies out there, sure, and I disagree with their policies more, even (maybe, I guess I don't know so much with Romney). But, I really respect Romney and Ryan the least. Lying like that and having no conviction on anything just bugs me.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Then you'll hire more people to support demand regardless of a tax cut or not.

Order a kindle paperwhite recently? Or are you assuming that demand follows a linear graph?

 

[CygnusXS]

It's disgusting how utterly cynical this is.

Someone pointed out yesterday that 70 million people watching the debates saw Romney say his plan covered pre-existing conditions. How many people saw the next day's "clarification" from the Romney campaign that said that's pretty much not the case whatsoever?

Dude's a fucking scumbag.

I've long held that personal character is one of the least important aspects of a politician, instead choosing to focus on their competency, policy preferences, and other more substantive qualities.

Romney's really making me rethink that stance.

 

[Cloudy]

http://saintpetersblog.com/2012/10/...fl-nc-or-va-says-barack-obama-cant-win-there/

Suffolk University pollster says they aren't polling FL, VA and NC anymore because Romney will definitely win those (even though Obama was ahead by 2 in FL and VA in their last polls). Maybe NC and FL but VA?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Yes, it's the government telling the market. It's not running it. Huge difference.

What? Those two things are synonymous. Telling the market what it can or cannot do is directly impacting how the market is run. Just because it's not a state controlled economy doesn't mean the government isn't controlling in some fashion how it's run. It's about degrees of control, it can be between zero and 100%.

 

[Black Mamba]

Because you have the ability to hire more people to fulfill that contract. And possibly to take on more contracts for widgets.

No you don't. 20% tax cut is not going be enough to expand, especially for a small business owner. You're talking about hundreds to a couple thousand dollars total for most.

Why do companies with HUGE profits still borrow money to invest in their businesses? Businesses borrow when they want to expand. Just like they borrow when they create the business.

If Demand is up, you expand period. Doesn't matter what the taxes are. The ability is there no matter what.