Business Owners Are People Too

But WHOSE taxes do Republicans want to lower? Yours? Well, maybe, if you are among the richest of the rich. Otherwise, not happening.

We will go broke b/c the truly rich continue despite Democratic attempts to avoid paying their fair share!!

And don't even get me started on health-care. Please provide a source that elective cosmetic procedures would be covered AND education paid through college.

I will say, however, that if we were really going to be a "free-for-all," then I want a voucher to pay for my health care instead of other people's children's education (talking K-12). Why should education be covered but health care not be covered? I don't want to pay for the education of ANY children if we cannot get health insurance at a reasonable price.

We CANNOT purchase insurance b/c of pre-existing conditions that are 1000% bogus (we are runners with a few nicks and dings in terms of knees, joints, whatever...but healthier than 95% of the population if I had to guess). And this includes company policies b/c we (as owners) were put on some kind of list in the sky that prohibits us even from purchasing company insurance, which we used to have.

Republicans protect Donald Trump and his peers. The trickle down bullshit doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.

And Democrats just like Republicans recognize the debt situation. The question is WHERE to spend limited resources and WHO to tax to obtain those resources.

Wow.

Precious Roy wrote:

So, the choice is yours, line your pockets with some extra cash at the expense of senior citizens or be a man and pay your fair share.

Now you are just trolling.

Thanks for the lecture. I guess hyperbole can never be used to make a point.

Basically, I favor a vast simplification of the tax code. Progressive rates are fine, but drop all of them 5-10% for individuals and businesses. Eliminate a lot of the exemptions and credits for individuals. As it is, only a little over 50% of people actually pay federal income tax. Making these people pay taxes would probably not increase revenue that much, but it would get us away from this idea that the government only exists to give us stuff.

Now, you would have to cut spending. Basically everything would have to be cut at least some, and yes that includes defense. Social Security and Medicare would ideally be phased out so only those that truly need their benefits receive them. As it is, we have a lot of rich/upper-middle class old people collecting social security because it was promised to them when they were working. The whole system relies on more people paying in than collecting, and that won't always be true. What will most likely happen is retirement ages will be raised and benefits reduced. I'm not saying it will be fair for everyone, but something will have to be done.

Public salaries and benefits will also need to be examined. As an example, a guy I know retired from the postal service at age 53 and has a very solid benefits package guaranteed for the rest of his life. He has no disabilities or anything that would stop him from working. Name a private business that can afford to offer that to all employees. You can't. I won't even get into government contracts and all of the waste that occurs there, or the amount of our budget that gets eaten up by payments on the national debt.

These are just a few examples. If our politicians were really serious about this, they would have no trouble at least balancing the budget. The sad truth, however, is many of them care most about re-election, and nobody likes to be told no. There, is that what you were looking for?

Ahem wrote:

When telling people that they are ignorant of what's actually proposed, please site specific examples of what has been proposed. Speaking in generalities as you have only perpetuates speaking in talking points. It currently appears that you are as ignorant as those you are chastising (I'm not saying that you are, just that you appear that way by not providing any specifics to support your argument.)

Just to name one of many examples, without writing a treatise, in my circle of friends, I personally know MANY relatively not rich who genuinely *believe* based on a few Republican sound bites that they will have more money in their pockets because they will have a lower tax burden under Republicans than under Democrats. That is BULLSHIT!!

Another thing that is bullshit is the whole idea that med mal lawsuits are the reason for rising health care costs. I will not get into more detail b/c I don't want to write a book here.

When you add in the votes from the right-wing religious folks and the gun-proponents, which basically includes LOTS of rednecks who aren't particularly well-educated (some of these people are members of my own family so I am not knocking them as individuals), then you get a pretty powerful group of people all joined together, many of whom again just aren't really educated about financial issues. Basically IMHO Republicans rely upon LOTS of votes from the uneducated and/or poor, either based on misinformation about taxes, trickle down bullshit, or some specific idealogical issue that has nothing to do with their financial situation, such as abortion, christianity, or guns (the last category (ideological issues) being completely their right, of course, but the existence of that very large sub-category of the Republican party means (to me) that the majority of people do NOT agree with the *financial/tax* agenda of the Republican party). Of course plenty of Republicans are rich and educated, but those Republicans are in the minority in the party, again in my observation and opinion.

But if you are a Republican--do you seriously think this will happen under Republicans or Democrats?

If not, then why would you vote Republican? Just b/c you somehow perceive that they are the closest to your ideal? The fact is that REPUBLICANS PROTECT REALLY RICH PEOPLE--AND ONLY REALLY RICH PEOPLE. Unless you are one of them, why do you want to protect really rich people?? Protecting really rich people will not make your vision any more likely to come true.

I agree that people who have means to survive should not get social security or Medicare. These are rich people in my opinion, hopefully/probably including myself and my husband when we reach that age. But these are not the really rich people--not the richest of the rich, by any stretch of the imagination. The Republican party, I swear, was a fraud created by a bunch of totally elite rich people in a smoky room somewhere and the con continues...

Yeah, and uneducated inner-cities aren't Democratic strongholds or anything. As far as taxes go, look up the Bush tax cuts. While I'm certainly not his biggest fan as a president, you will find that he cut the marginal federal income tax rate for virtually everyone.

Silky Johnson wrote:

Yeah, and uneducated inner-cities aren't Democratic strongholds or anything. As far as taxes go, look up the Bush tax cuts. While I'm certainly not his biggest fan as a president, you will find that he cut the marginal federal income tax rate for virtually everyone.

By how many pennies for most tax brackets?

It was actually around 5% for most all of them. The rates were:

15%, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6

And then they were:

10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35

I will say that he screwed it all up by letting the deficit get out of control, though. While I think he was only trying to do what he thought was right, the two wars and medicare part D turned out to be quite costly.

I think you've missed my entire point. You continued to attack the individuals you disagree with rather than provide details as to why they're wrong. You will not get into more detail because you don't want to write a book? You've provided no details.

To my original point, what specific legislation has been proposed by the democrats that would benefit small business more than that has been proposed by the republicans? If you can't answer this, it's time to look in the mirror and realize you are the other side of the same coin that you are criticizing.

Not bad. Like I said, I'm on the left. I agree with all of this. Which party has the political will to carry this out? Seems to me you've got as good a chance with the Democrats as you do with the Republicans.

Trouble on the left is, of course, the public interests that profit from the status quo in complicated codes, govt spending, and benefits. Trouble on the right is that you've got private interests that benefit from exactly the same issues--corporate welfare, etc. So there is no political will from either side to produce the common sense sorts of cuts that you and I --ordinary folk on who lean left and who lean right -- agree upon.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten

comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it

would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

* The fifth would pay $1.

* The sixth would pay $3.

* The seventh would pay $7.

* The eighth would pay $12.

* The ninth would pay $18.

* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the

arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are

all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your

daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the

first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But

what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they

divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted

that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would

each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested

that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same

amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued

to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to

compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed

to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the

fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten

times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should

he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the

breaks!''Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't

get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat

down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,

they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money

between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is

how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the

most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for

being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they

might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do

not understand, no explanation is possible.

L Chaim wrote:

Go live in Nazi Israel and see how you like it there !

Please elaborate on this ridiculous statement. I really doubt there are that many Nazis in Israel.

The Nazi-Zionists are done.

Ahem wrote:

I think you've missed my entire point. You continued to attack the individuals you disagree with rather than provide details as to why they're wrong. You will not get into more detail because you don't want to write a book? You've provided no details.

To my original point, what specific legislation has been proposed by the democrats that would benefit small business more than that has been proposed by the republicans? If you can't answer this, it's time to look in the mirror and realize you are the other side of the same coin that you are criticizing.

Re-read my first paragraph. I did not miss your point.

So here is the latest example that comes to mind, straight from the New York Times. I had never read this article before posting today but basically the author is saying EXACTLY the same thing that I said in the first paragraph of the quote that you pasted in your last post.

As a matter of fact, I was thinking today that the Democrats should start calling referring to the opposing political party members as RepubliCONS.

Op-Ed Columnist

Now That’s RichBy PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 22, 2010

Recommend

Twitter

comments (523)

Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Reprints

Share

Close

LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page »

.Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal.Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (523) »

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right — but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits? Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

HRE wrote:

There are two parts here and you're conveniently overlooking the first part. If government is going to do what it can to make a country a very good place to do business then businesses are benefiting from that. Therefore, businesses are somewhat indebted to their government.

Absolutely one is "indebted" to their government. The government EXISTS to serve the people. Not the other way around.

I have a small business, and the government crushes us. I hope you're talking about bigger businesses. I haven't hired anyone in four years because I can't afford to pay insurance which is unconstitutionally mandated and what I am afraid I will have to pay in wages in this climate.

If an entity makes a special job of doing you a favor you're indebted. Phrase it anyway you like. Making America a "good place to do business" is done with the intention of benefiting the entire nation, not just business people.

You Americans don't know how lucky you are. People in Egypt can't start businesses since there are no customers, and no products to profit from. People in Israel are assassinated by Israeli troops for being Muslims. Freedom and Democracy is not the norm in the world.

uegreenmithell wrote:

I have a small business, and the government crushes us. I hope you're talking about bigger businesses. I haven't hired anyone in four years because I can't afford to pay insurance which is unconstitutionally mandated and what I am afraid I will have to pay in wages in this climate.

That's the whole thing about capitalism-- labor shifts from places where it is not productive to places where it is productive.

If you can't afford to hire, it is because your employees aren't productive enough doing what they do for you. Hence-- they shouldn't be working for you-- they should be working at a good job where they are productive.

No one mourns the fact that elevators no longer have an human operator. No one will mourn the end of your low productivity jobs either.