First Stimulus, Now "Deficit Reduction".

[edwardsfire]

Given that the federal government is the largest single employer this country has, I'm pretty sure it is common sense to also say that the government creates jobs also.

There is no economist that will agree with that.
Govt. absolutely does not create jobs. You are simply incorrect.
If you may, ask ANY economist. But you wont like the answer.
You FAIL to realize is that We the People are the Govt. in the USA.
Govt. doesnt exist without "people" it simply cant "create jobs"
Govt. isnt some entity, it is ours.
I think you need a good civics class....lol

 

[minnie61650]

I feel the Stimulas was needed to help slow down the loss jobs that have dramically increased in the last year.

As for letting the Bush tax expire in 2011 that was always a part of President Obama's long term plan.

I think that just like our house holds need to have a budget so should the government.

Our govenment has been overspending and in my opinion I think we need to focus again on trying to balance the budget,

Just my 2 cents.

 

[minnie61650]

The sad thing is that those very people he wants to tax will simply move their money and businesses overseas where they will be welcome with open arms and lower business taxes.

Not us.
We will keep our family owned business in Michigan.

I do agree many may move their businesses overseas but many of those will still be paying US taxes.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

You have misunderstood my post. I do not have "disdain" for (some) government workers. I am a teacher, as well. My family has a long history of military service. That doesn't change the FACT that when I get my paycheck, I am being paid by the grace of OTHERS' labors. If THEY do not work and pay taxes, and their businesses do not PROFIT, there is NO MONEY for my school district or any other government employer. The term "government funded" is erroneous — there are no government "funds" except those contributed by the private sector. My school district does not create income — it takes from those who do, and uses it to fund schools. The private sector isn't "part" of our economy, it is THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. Government jobs like mine and yours exist only as the private sector flourishes; if the private sector is demonized and "rich" people are punished for their success through excessive taxation then everyone will suffer because GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS OR WEALTH OR OPPORTUNITY.

Again, the arithmetic couldn't be more simple. Facing the reality of how our economy works isn't disdainful, it's rational — and ignoring it is perilous.

No, I do understand what you are saying; however, I disagree with it. In order to create wealth, you must create something that people will pay more for than it costs to manufacture or produce (whether it be a product or a service).

If a researcher in a government lab creates a type of genetically-engineered corn that will resist pests while reducing the amount of pesticides needed, then this would provide the country with wealth in the form of more plentiful and inexpensive food supplies.

Military research has led to many marketable inventions and technologies (i.e., thermal imaging, the internet). If these products produce more income for the country than was paid into their research, then, once again, wealth is being created.

Government-funded research can pay dividends to the country, just like investments in the stock market pay dividends to the stock holder. (Unfortunately, they tend to do it less efficiently than the private sector, but that is the topic for another discussion where out opinions would probably be more in line with each other .)

Without teachers there would be significantly less professionals in the world that in turn create wealth. Just like a good business invests in important infrastructure because they realize it would be good for the bottom line, so does the government. By investing in teachers, we (as representatives of our respective nations) are providing a solid infrastructure for the private sector that will pay off down the road.

While the private sector is vital for injecting money into the economy, the public sector is also a vital support for the private sector. They are in a symbiotic relationship; without each other, neither would flourish.

 

[minnie61650]

Explain something to me. How does taking $$$ from one individual.... and giving those same $$$ to another...improve the economy? How??

Not all of the taxes that will be generated by letting the Bush tax cuts expire will be given back in tax cuts.


According to the following website the Obama plan would add 700 billion dollars to the Federal budget.





http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase[/QUOTE]

Link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

*Please note:

the amount listed is
Not actual.

Someone making $0 will get a $0 tax break.

Someone making $18,891 will get a $567 tax break.

Those making more than $0 but less than $18,891 will get a tax break somewhere between $0 and $567

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";30426132]
DH said that he will no longer work to make over $250,000 because he refuses to spread the wealth the way he wants to. We have no problem spreading it to disabled, Charities, Elderly and such. But giving to illegals or those that get rewarded for not working and getting money anyway does not cut it.

So we will make less...so much for reaching for the stars...

Also it's not the people that are making 25 million a movie(as many actors do) that this will hurt...it is the small businesses that will be paying the price.

Even my kids that are 12 and 15 dont get the logic behind it.[/QUOTE]

Let me get this straight. Let's say your business has the potential to make $350,000 instead of $250,000. Under the current system, you would pocket approximately 64,000. If the marginal tax rate goes up 3.5%, you would pocket 60,500. Instead, you'd rather pocket nothing than give up a small fraction of that extra income? Does anyone else see this as silly?

Of course, I'm coming at this as someone who has more than half their family income taxed at a marginal tax rate of over 43%. I'm not complaining, though - I have a great standard of living and realize that my tax dollars are helping to keep both my home country (Canada) and my adopted country (Chile) healthy and strong.

 

[loco4dis]

No, I do understand what you are saying; however, I disagree with it. In order to create wealth, you must create something that people will pay more for than it costs to manufacture or produce (whether it be a product or a service).

If a researcher in a government lab creates a type of genetically-engineered corn that will resist pests while reducing the amount of pesticides needed, then this would provide the country with wealth in the form of more plentiful and inexpensive food supplies.

Military research has led to many marketable inventions and technologies (i.e., thermal imaging, the internet). If these products produce more income for the country than was paid into their research, then, once again, wealth is being created.

Government-funded research can pay dividends to the country, just like investments in the stock market pay dividends to the stock holder. (Unfortunately, they tend to do it less efficiently than the private sector, but that is the topic for another discussion where out opinions would probably be more in line with each other .)

Without teachers there would be significantly less professionals in the world that in turn create wealth. Just like a good business invests in important infrastructure because they realize it would be good for the bottom line, so does the government. By investing in teachers, we (as representatives of our respective nations) are providing a solid infrastructure for the private sector that will pay off down the road.

While the private sector is vital for injecting money into the economy, the public sector is also a vital support for the private sector. They are in a symbiotic relationship; without each other, neither would flourish.

Oy vey! There is NO SUCH THING as "government-funded" research. ALL of government's money comes from the private sector. ALL OF IT!!!! I'm not suggesting that there aren't certain social dividends from government expenditures — national defense being the most important, of course — but that does not change the FACT that those dividends come to us on the backs of others' labor in the private sector. Those who love government programs should be the most committed capitalists of all, because those government programs exist ONLY through the labor of the private sector. It really doesn't matter how much "good" government programs do if those who run the government are intent on punishing those who fund the programs. Eventually, through the greed of government and this adolescent class warfare, the funding will be all gone, along with any social dividends these government programs may provide.

 

[Disneycrazymom]

But someone making 0 will get a tax credit under the stimulus plan. I personally call it welfare but I know we are supposed to see it as a tax cut.

No way do I believe those #'s will stay that way. He is going to raise taxes on much lower income than $226000. I can read what it says but I have never believed it from the days of the campaign and I don't believe it now. He will go after as much money as he can get to fund the wish list. This is only the beginning of the redistribution.

 

[chobie]

Let me get this straight. Let's say your business has the potential to make $350,000 instead of $250,000. Under the current system, you would pocket approximately 74,000. If the marginal tax rate goes up 3.5%, you would pocket 70,500. Instead, you'd rather pocket nothing than give up a small fraction of that extra income? Does anyone else see this as silly?

Of course, I'm coming at this as someone who has more than half their family income taxed at a marginal tax rate of over 43%. I'm not complaining, though - I have a great standard of living and realize that my tax dollars are helping to keep both my home country (Canada) and my adopted country (Chile) healthy and strong.

Rather like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. All these people crying about having to pay taxes for people on welfare have the option of quitting their $250,000 a year job, moving with their kids to the projects and living on a few hundred dollars a month -- and they should do it!

 

[dcentity2000]

ALL of government's money comes from the private sector. ALL OF IT!!!!

Hold on, I'm confused (and ignorant). Doesn't the Government get lots of money from taxpayers as well as from the private sector?

Come to that, don't Governments create jobs by creating positions for civil servants?

My apologies for surely dumb questions



Rich::

 

[minnie61650]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";30426132]
DH said that he will no longer work to make over $250,000 because he refuses to spread the wealth the way he wants to. We have no problem spreading it to disabled, Charities, Elderly and such. But giving to illegals or those that get rewarded for not working and getting money anyway does not cut it.

So we will make less...so much for reaching for the stars...

.[/QUOTE]

That is sad that your DH does not want to make over $250,000 any longer.

We are still doing doing our best to keep our income high.

Would DH's business be able to take advantage of any of the new breaks in the stimulas package?

Small Business Tax Breaks in the Stimulus Package

February 15, 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contains numerous tax provisions aimed at small businesses.



Bonus depreciation: IRC section 168(k) is amended to extend the 50% first-year bonus depreciation through 2009 (through 2010 for certain transportation property and aircraft).



The election to accelerate AMT and research credits in lieu of taking the bonus depreciation (which had been introduced last year by the Housing Assistance Tax Act, P.L. 110-289) is also extended to qualifying property placed in service through 2009. Special rules apply to taxpayers who had already made this election for property placed in service in 2008.



Section 179 expensing: The increase in the section 179 expensing amount to $250,000 and the increase in the phaseout threshold to $800,000 are both extended through 2009. The amounts had originally been temporarily increased (for 2008) by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, P.L. 110-185.



Carryback of small business NOLs: Eligible small businesses are allowed to carry their 2008 net operating losses (NOLs) back for five years (section 172(b)(1)(H)). An eligible small business is one that has average gross receipts of $15 million or less (using the gross receipts test from section 448(c)). The act gives Treasury authority to publish anti-abuse rules relating to this provision.



Small business estimated taxes: Qualified individuals are allowed (for 2009 only) to make estimated tax payments that equal only 90% of their preceding tax year liability instead of 100% (under section 6654(d)(1)). To be a qualified individual, the taxpayer must have adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than $500,000 and more than 50% of the individual’s gross income must come from a small business (a business with an average of fewer than 500 employees).



Work opportunity tax credit: The act creates two new targeted groups for the work opportunity tax credit, “disconnected youth” and unemployed veterans (section 51(d)(14)). Employers who hire members of these groups during 2009 or 2010 may be eligible to take the credit.



Discharge of business indebtedness: The act allows certain businesses to recognize cancellation of indebtedness income over five years, starting in 2014, if the business repurchases specific types of debt in 2009 or 2010 (section 108(i)).



Qualified small business stock: The section 1202 exclusion of gain from the sale of qualified small business stock is increased from 50% to 75%, for stock acquired after the enactment date and before Jan. 1, 2011.



S corporations: The recognition period for assets subject to the built-in gains tax is reduced from 10 years to seven years for S corporation tax years beginning in 2009 and 2010 (Section 1374(d)(7)).



Limitations of loss carryforwards: For businesses that have ownership changes pursuant to a restructuring plan required by a Treasury loan agreement or line of credit under the bailout provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, P.L. 110-343, the section 382 limitation on loss carryforwards will not apply.<SNIP>

Link to full article:

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Web/SmallBusinessTaxBreaksinStimulusBill.htm

 

[loco4dis]

Rather like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. All these people crying about having to pay taxes for people on welfare have the option of quitting their $250,000 a year job, moving with their kids to the projects and living on a few hundred dollars a month -- and they should do it!

They won't have to do that. They'll just hire 10 fewer workers, close down one of their company's divisions, buy a new car every 8 years instead of every 4, go to WDW every other year instead of every year, sock more money away in the bank rather than the stock market, etc. And lots and lots of folks will lose their jobs. See how that works? You're right, this class warfare is classic "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" — and all those lower income workers who are waiting for their Obama checks aren't being told that these "soak the rich" policies are going to hurt them so much, but they'll be even more dependent on the government, which is right where some politicians want them.

 

[DawnCt1]

Obama's campaign statement; "Everyone will have some skin in this game". If he is going to raise taxes on the producers, the engine that makes this economy work, let him put his money where his mouth is; Do away completely with the earned income tax credit, that is nothing more than welfare for many. Let him raise taxes all the way down to the paper boy that makes $25 a week on his paper route. LET EVERYONE have some skin in this game. When those who pay absolutely NO INCOME TAX, yet reap the rewards from those that do, have to start forking over for the new great utopian society, they may think twice about this plan.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

Oy vey! There is NO SUCH THING as "government-funded" research. ALL of government's money comes from the private sector. ALL OF IT!!!! I'm not suggesting that there aren't certain social dividends from government expenditures — national defense being the most important, of course — but that does not change the FACT that those dividends come to us on the backs of others' labor in the private sector. Those who love government programs should be the most committed capitalists of all, because those government programs exist ONLY through the labor of the private sector. It really doesn't matter how much "good" government programs do if those who run the government are intent on punishing those who fund the programs. Eventually, through the greed of government and this adolescent class warfare, the funding will be all gone, along with any social dividends these government programs may provide.

You seem to see the world as divided into "us" and "them". Those dividends come on the backs on NOT ONLY those in the private sector, but also those in the public sector. The person in the mailroom of IBM doesn't really generate wealth, either, but supplies a supporting role for a company that does. I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to support private enterprise. However, I can tell you that in Canada most small business owners pay significantly less tax than my DH and I do when they earn the same income. I was under the impression that similar conditions exist in the States.

And, as for ALL OF THE MONEY COMING FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, I would beg to differ. I would say that all of the money came from selling the natural resources our countries (run by our governments) have provided us with. That money has then been used by both the private and public sector to generate more wealth.

 

[DancingBear]

Oy vey! There is NO SUCH THING as "government-funded" research. ALL of government's money comes from the private sector. ALL OF IT!!!!

Whatever. Then I guess that Microsoft doesn't fund any of its product development, since all of their money for that comes from its customers.

The point is that government activities benefit the private sector in any number of ways, by doing things that could not, or would not, be done by the private sector alone. It is a symbiotic relationship.

 

[DancingBear]

Obama's campaign statement; "Everyone will have some skin in this game". If he is going to raise taxes on the producers, the engine that makes this economy work, let him put his money where his mouth is; Do away completely with the earned income tax credit, that is nothing more than welfare for many. Let him raise taxes all the way down to the paper boy that makes $25 a week on his paper route. LET EVERYONE have some skin in this game. When those who pay absolutely NO INCOME TAX, yet reap the rewards from those that do, have to start forking over for the new great utopian society, they may think twice about this plan.

Right, he should to this to fulfill his general campaign statement "Everyone will have some skin in this game" rather than actually fulfill his specific campaign promise to raise taxes (marginally) on those making over $250,000 and giving a tax cut to the middle class.

 

[Free4Life11]

Let me get this straight. Let's say your business has the potential to make $350,000 instead of $250,000. Under the current system, you would pocket approximately 64,000. If the marginal tax rate goes up 3.5%, you would pocket 60,500. Instead, you'd rather pocket nothing than give up a small fraction of that extra income? Does anyone else see this as silly?

It's not silly, it's straight up STUPID. And certainly not a good way to run a business if you ask me!?

 

[txaggiemomof3]

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by
legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person
receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not first take from
somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that
they do not have to work because the other half is going to
take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work because somebody else is going
to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the
end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it."

~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers

 

[djm99]

Rather like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. All these people crying about having to pay taxes for people on welfare have the option of quitting their $250,000 a year job, moving with their kids to the projects and living on a few hundred dollars a month -- and they should do it!

OMG!!! I'm so glad you posted this. I wrote this in another thread. It is ridiculous to hear some of these complaints. Someone actually posted that they are considering making less money. I'm thinking okay - and that hurts Obama how? Sometimes I wonder if some of these posters are comedians.

 

[DawnCt1]

OMG!!! I'm so glad you posted this. I wrote this in another thread. It is ridiculous to hear some of these complaints. Someone actually posted that they are considering making less money. I'm thinking okay - and that hurts Obama how? Sometimes I wonder if some of these posters are comedians.

It reduces the funds to the federal coffers that he has so generously chose to redistribute. His plan isn't about raising the standard of living. Its about lowering it for the producers.