Lucky...

Your writer, and you, assume that only higher taxes will cause the business owner to invest. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. Regardless of level of taxation a business owner is always looking to lower his tax burden however he can. He is just as likely to invest in new equipment and pay Christmas bonuses at 5% tax rate as he is at 50% tax rate. By the logic proposed by your story, no business owner is happy until he has zero income. No, but he can invest in his business in the form of equipment, buildings, etc to build the value of it. Basically the longer we stay at 35%, 28%, 25% the longer we will reciprically have to stay at 70%, 80%.

I don't care if they're wages, investment income, capital gains or any other form of income, the 16th allows the gov to tax all of us; move to Montana or sit there in denial, I really don't care. That's Communism, I don't expect a neo-con to understand the vast difference, perhaps take a trip to Communist Canada before it gets too cold since you don't know the difference. Princess, my hands are riddled with scars, cuts and grease right now in the fingernails; you are clearly barking at the wrong person here. Last week I remover the manding gear out of a 737 and I don't wear gloves. Scan your princess-manicured nails and post them. Riiiiight, we get that brief response. You vote for R's or L's = sociopaths. All you have to do is ask for data that doesn't exist, whereas a massive mountain of data exists that when taxes are low, the debt soars, unemp flys and growth slows, and that's since at least the FDR admin. But you want specific data that doesn't exist; typical cop-out. Just explain why the afformentioned occurs. Not sure that is really more than a vastly mushy, totally indirect answer, but in a way it's right, at least conceptually. So explain why you, the real Amrercan, wants to starve the US Gov, hence the people and hurt America. Are you a terrist (intentional misspelling for conservatives)? Why not advocate for America and as Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but whatyou can do for your country." Paying enough taxes to keep her well is being a true American versus a typical nationalist which is all we get from the RW.

Consider the source and the bias . . . Why - you don't listen to reason anyway. Why would I waste my time with you? You never post anything but cheerleading rhetoric. You don't go to a source, cite and post anything even errant, just climb on backs of other neo-cons and cheer. It's a joke reading your nothingness.

I'm loneley in denial land? Why, you have so much company and your one-liners are enjoyed by all. Bill just basically said, "why even show up, your contributions are worthless." Seriously, actually look something up and make an argument rather than just jump on someone's back and ride.

YOUR statement makes no sense and shows how little understand about how the economy works Just like you and others do not understand the corps do not pay taxes. Your talking points just make no sense So when the top marginal bracket is raised, esp to > 50%, 70% then what do corporations do with profits? - Pay taxes at that rate - Spend on items to writeoff their profit to avoid taxes - OR???? We'll start with 1 element at a time for you. Sort of, stock holders own their share of the corporation, but the directors decide how to manage/mismanage that money. The way stocks are bought and sold many times holders just owna stock for hours or days rather than years/deacades, so thecorporations is the BOD. Again, sort of. If costs go too high, they still must compete with their competition. And taxing/redistributing ensures consumners will have the money to buy things; circulation of money, natural or artificial is paramount to a healthy economy, corporations and the rich tend to pool it w/o the gov ensuring they move it. They still have to compete and the higher taxes are, the more growth seems to occur, that has repeated over and over since FDR; show where it hasn't. Nothing is, period. That shows a closed mind. If your fanatasy is true, explian how we have loser growth in periods of lower taxes, higher debt accrual, etc. You could cite the Reagan years where there was growth, but there was such amazing deficit spending at a time not in war that that explains the growth. The trick is to spend less and increase growth and that was done under Clinton as he raised taxes and cut spending, esp military spending. Hey, hey, hey, leave military contractors out of this. What one element? I'm reading your post, aren't I? And you still didn't directly answer my question, I don't expect you will. So when the top marginal bracket is raised, esp to > 50%, 70% then what do corporations do with profits? - Pay taxes at that rate - Spend on items to writeoff their profit to avoid taxes - OR????

A lot depends upon what type of corp you have, obviously LLC you could writeoff direct cost vs depreciation. Benefits and downsides. Tell me this, how much of your profit is writeoffable in regard to employees? Oh, 100%, that's right. So maybe high taxes encourage hiring more people directly, paying them more in bonuses at Christmas during good years and that sore of direct impact vs buying more equipment and just being able to writeoff depreciation, but 100% direct costs. Also, many small businesses are LLC and whatever type (S, C), so they can writeoff 100% costs on business rather than depreciation, so your model doesn't apply to those.

I'm single, have my own business, and make over 250K. These tax increases aren't going to affect me. They are going to hurt people who make less than I do. Here's why: Until now, I've paid more thanmy share of taxes (over 40 percent of my AGI, 100K+/year), but with these upcoming increases, I've gone to my CPA, and asked how I can shield myself from the increases. He has a perfectly legal method that I'm going to use. The kicker: I can't hire anyone else. So if I have the need for additional staff, I won't hire -- it would cost me too much. So there you go: I'll actually be saving more money (and paying less tax) next year, but I won't be hiring. Love your explanation; complete with a secret that you won't disclose. The million dollar question: WHAT DID YOU CPA TELL YOU TO SHIELD YOUR INCOME? And for your explanation as to not hire more people; DUH, BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY AND YOU WOULD PAY EVEN MORE TAXES. Hey, here's a clue: FUCKING SPEND MONEY ON COMPANY ASSETS THAT WILL DO 3 THINGS: - write down your AGI - increase the value of your businesss - make your business more profitable So stay hiden behind the veil of secrecy to keep your anti-tax rant seemingly viable, or tell us the general type of your business you're in and what the CPA told you to do in addition to not hiring more. Also, if you don't hire more, your competition will, as in free enmterprise, demand-supply you don't dictate need, the consumer does, so the people you don't hire using your secret reason will be picked up by your competition and they will be smart/ingenious enough to grow their business and hire.

YOUR statement makes no sense and shows how little understand about how the economy works Just like you and others do not understand the corps do not pay taxes. Your talking points just make no sense So when the top marginal bracket is raised, esp to > 50%, 70% then what do corporations do with profits? - Pay taxes at that rate - Spend on items to writeoff their profit to avoid taxes - OR???? We'll start with 1 element at a time for you.

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense. More appropriate: Hey frick and frack, do you guys ever see how out of any real argument you look to everyone but yourselves? Guys like Mike, lawrocket, etc actually have arguments, you guys just emoticons. firck here dude Let me clue you in YOU HAVE NO FUCKING ARGUMENT DUDE!!!!!!!! Your post here clearly proves that I started reply's three times and said to my self to hell with it You dont get it And you're still unable to make your point; failed 3 times. Explain how growth is higher, debt accrual lower under high taxes. Oh, you can't. Maybe start another 3 or 5 times then scrap it; don't blame me for your inability to express your ideas.

Here's a read. It's some guys blog page, so don't consider teh source, just the logic and refute it: Let’s say my business has a gross revenue of $200,000. Labor costs are $120,000, equipment costs were $20,000, and rent and utilities and all other expenses were $20,000. Those business expenses add up to $160,000. Since my gross revenue was $200,000, my actual net profit would be $40,000. If my business was taxed at 25%, my tax bill would be $10,000. If it was taxed at a 75% rate, my tax bill would be $30,000. If I waited until after I paid my taxes to buy equipment, I would have left my net profit at the full $40,000, all of it taxable. Here’s why high taxes can actually be an incentive for a business owner to buy equipment at the end of the year…or give out employee bonuses at the end of the year. Yes, if you receive a bonus around Christmas time, that bonus is fully deductible as a business expense. Now you know why it comes around the end of the year. And here you thought your boss was actually giving you a Christmas bonus. Nope, he’s reducing the net profit of his business and your bonus helps him avoid paying more taxes. As a business owner, the thought process sounds something like this: "Hmmm, if my net profit is $40,000, I’ll owe $10,000 in taxes this year. Why should I pay that much? Why should the Federal government get my business’ hard earned money? I’d rather give it away than pay them that much!" And so evolves the "Christmas" bonus in the mind of the business owner. Better that my employees get a bonus than the Fed gets one dime more than they deserve, which is almost nothing. Besides, maybe that bonus will encourage my employees to work more efficiently; at least they won’t waste that money like the Federal government would. And, I can pay myself a nice bonus, too…fully deductible. So let’s say the bonuses add up to $20,000. My net profit is now reduced to $20,000, and if I paid at a 25% rate, I would still owe $5,000 in taxes. Hmm, how can I cut that amount even lower? I know! I’ll buy equipment that I was putting off until next year! Anything to reduce my net profit as close to zero as possible so that my tax bill is as close to zero as possible, too. Trickle Down Economics puts the cart before the horse. In other words, it paints a portrait of a business owner being a moron and paying taxes before he pays bonuses or buys capital equipment. Not smart, especially when it leaves you paying taxes on a much higher net profit. I don’t personally know of a single business owner or executive who runs his business that way. Not one. Remember when I said that higher tax rates would create an even greater incentive for a business to reinvest in itself rather than throw their net profit down the toilet by paying extra taxes to the Fed? Well, think about it. If my tax rate was 75%, that would mean a $40,000 profit would see $30,000 of my company’s money being paid to the IRS. If you think I’m stingy at 25%, wait until you see how stingy I am toward the IRS if taxes are at 75%. Where does all that money go? If I give it to my employees as bonuses, conveniently around Christmas so I look like a big softy; where does that money end up? Does some of it maybe end up at the mall? And maybe some of it is saved, and some of it is invested. If I didn’t give those "Christmas" bonuses, and instead paid the actual taxes on my gross profit, where would that money end up? I think we all know that it would end up in the toilet. Where does the money I spend on Capital equipment right before the end of the year go? The same place my Conservative friend said it would end up if only the Feds would cut his business taxes so he had more money to buy equipment. The cart before the horse. If you are a business owner who waits to buy equipment or give out bonuses until after you’ve paid taxes, you are flushing money down the toilet. Executives and business owners do not operate that way, unless they are morons. In the end, the Federal Government does not dictate to me how much of that gross profit they are going to get. I control that, because I control how much net profit I actually have. I control it through wages, expenses, and equipment purchases. If I have to buy a new computer every year just to make sure that the $2000 I spend on it does not end up in the hands of the IRS, then that’s what I do. And I do do that. Higher taxes are an even greater incentive for me to reinvest in my business than low taxes. Like I said before, I do not know of a single business owner or executive who doesn’t feel the same way. Conservative politics and Trickle Down anecdotes aside, the numbers prove that high taxes are a greater incentive for businesses to reinvest in themselves than low taxes. And when we reinvest in our own businesses, we are helping to create the demand that Conservatives say comes from Trickle Down economics. Cut corporate taxes, they say. But it doesn’t work. Low taxes create very little incentive for reinvestment. Rather, they create incentive for a business to hoard cash. Cash doesn’t do anyone any good unless it is spent. This is not rocket science, but proponents of Trickle Down economics prefer anecdotes to facts. They prefer to tell you all about how businesses would reinvest money into their own business if only we cut their taxes, and they’d do it because they’d have more money to spend. But reality shows that it just doesn’t work that way. I spend my money before the Fed gets it, not after. I know exactly how much money I have to spend, and I plan that with my accountant. I reduce the actual taxes I pay by being proactive; by reinvesting in my business RATHER THAN PAYING THAT MONEY TO THE IRS. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/68123

And so are yours; wave teh onstitution when it seems fun, denouce it when it doesn't quite work. The 16th isn't because I think it does, it's because "they" think it does. If you don't like it or any provision of the US Const; tough shit, I don't see it changing any time soon. And that is why I want to see it redirected to things I want, like HC for all. Working, paying for things and getting them is great, giving it away to get nothing is not; your Republinazis want to give it to the rich, my party wants to better the general populous. Congratulations, your ribbon is on the way. Any welfare you've ever received wouldn't be dosclosed here, but let's say you became disabled, you would be all over your benefits. Oh, you vote for the ultra-sociopaths? The Libertarians. Yea, those are the most fun to watch waffle all over the place when they call for welfare as they need it after denoucing it ferocioucly. I don't know of data that shows if business spends more under high taxes in order to shield it; who would track it? All you have to do is ask for something impossible and then claim victory when the impossible can't be delivered. Explain how more growth and less debt is encountered under higher taxes, that we know. Let us hear your explanation if you say my oh so obvious one is incorrect.

Yes, we do! And you too can aspire to be rich if you want! Maybe, instead of taxing the rich more we should make the less wealthy work harder to increase their income and, as a result, increase tax revenue. I like that idea better.

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense. You obviously have never run your own successful business. let me clue you in on a few things. -You work your ass off. -You work your ass off as many hours each day as is needed to get the job done. No exceptions. -You work your ass off seven days a week. -You work your ass off 52 weeks a year. -After all of that working your ass off, guess what? The fucking government comes and tries to tax away what is left of your ass. Give it a shot sometime. Maybe then you won't be so anxious to raise taxes on successful people. And if you make 250k with your family, these tax increases won't affect you, that's the issue, 250K AGI is really, really, good money, make < and the expired tax increase won't affect you; care to address the issue or just more RW bravado? And what of the money OVER 250k? Do you think people work less hard for that money? Care to address the questions i posed to you in this thread or are you just going to keep spewing socialist gutter filler? Thier taxes will start to increase. Until they hit 7 digits the progressive tax scale won't affectthem that much. I guess those great, flag-waving real Americans would want to reinvest in America anyway, right? I mean after all, America made them under her template of profit, so I'm sure givving back, creating their business to be bigger won't be a problem. If you cry about 250k AGI then boo-fuckking-hoo to you RW greed platform. Nothing like a very well-off person crying over greed. Taxes are at a 40-year low and you're crying about high taxes; the business owners of the 1950's, 60's would have several things to say to you. There you're wrong; the gov can take it as they see fit, see the 16th. Don't like it, move to Montana and be a Freeman. As for me getting it, don't pretend that there is a connecction between your tax bill and anything I get, esp since I haven't even receievd unemp in like 10 years, let alone any other form of welfare. Then quit electing Republicans if you feel that way. And oh, the gov doesn't give 2 rat's asses if you feel it is spent irresponsibly; FYI. As for fair, you feel fair is like 2%, that is just unrealistic, something for which you will need to consult a therapist. I will see if I can find data, but I don't know that direct data exists for the issue of when taxes are higher, more investment is made, lower taxes = more profit taking. We know there is more gropwth, the market increases, deficit falls, etc under liberal policies, but I don;t know that the data for which you seek, exists. I will look.

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense. You obviously have never run your own successful business. let me clue you in on a few things. -You work your ass off. -You work your ass off as many hours each day as is needed to get the job done. No exceptions. -You work your ass off seven days a week. -You work your ass off 52 weeks a year. -After all of that working your ass off, guess what? The fucking government comes and tries to tax away what is left of your ass. Give it a shot sometime. Maybe then you won't be so anxious to raise taxes on successful people. And if you make 250k with your family, these tax increases won't affect you, that's the issue, 250K AGI is really, really, good money, make < and the expired tax increase won't affect you; care to address the issue or just more RW bravado? And what of the money OVER 250k? Do you think people work less hard for that money? Care to address the questions i posed to you in this thread or are you just going to keep spewing socialist gutter filler? Thier taxes will start to increase. Until they hit 7 digits the progressive tax scale won't affectthem that much. I guess those great, flag-waving real Americans would want to reinvest in America anyway, right? I mean after all, America made them under her template of profit, so I'm sure givving back, creating their business to be bigger won't be a problem. If you cry about 250k AGI then boo-fuckking-hoo to you RW greed platform. Nothing like a very well-off person crying over greed. Taxes are at a 40-year low and you're crying about high taxes; the business owners of the 1950's, 60's would have several things to say to you.

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense. You obviously have never run your own successful business. let me clue you in on a few things. -You work your ass off. -You work your ass off as many hours each day as is needed to get the job done. No exceptions. -You work your ass off seven days a week. -You work your ass off 52 weeks a year. -After all of that working your ass off, guess what? The fucking government comes and tries to tax away what is left of your ass. Give it a shot sometime. Maybe then you won't be so anxious to raise taxes on successful people. And if you make 250k with your family, these tax increases won't affect you, that's the issue, 250K AGI is really, really, good money, make < and the expired tax increase won't affect you; care to address the issue or just more RW bravado?

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense. More appropriate: Hey frick and frack, do you guys ever see how out of any real argument you look to everyone but yourselves? Guys like Mike, lawrocket, etc actually have arguments, you guys just emoticons.

Go start your own company. Make a payroll. It'll give you some insight that you clearly don't have. If you're not making money hand over fist, just barely making it as you infer, it won't affect you, so your claim makes no sense.

In the most general of senses, yes, but that's where it ends. Bush cast stimuls for banks with no req to pay back, Obama's stimulus was aimed more at MC America and he made the banks pay it back or work under the rules of the shareholders; American gov.

Yes, which is why some kids like you should have a seperate play area so the adults can converse w/o distraction.

May be a newsflash, but GWB wasn't president of Canada.

Or this: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/bea_arthur.jpg&imgrefurl=http://laist.com/2009/04/25/actress_bea_arthur_dead_at_86.php&h=378&w=313&sz=10&tbnid=bkU2vFpYE_wQXM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbea%2Barthur&zoom=1&q=bea+arthur&usg=__2-zKzGHMI0Na-H5G62VYQhqP7xk=&sa=X&ei=xuSaTMTPIor0swOK7_CsBA&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Austin_Powers_in_Goldmember.jpg Are you horny, baby?

More importantly for 2 things: 1) Liability limitation 2) to avoid the req for 60-day notice for plant closure

I'll take a stab at it. A large portion of those individuals filing tax returns of incomes higher than 200k a year are small business owners who are filing the profits of their business on their returns. These small business also the central driving force in private sector job creation. Eliminating tax cuts for these individuals directly affects the bottom line of these businesses and consequently whether or not they have the ability to reinvestment in others by creating jobs...which I thought was the President's priority now. Remember, that's 200k AGI for singles, 250 AGI for joint filings. IOW's, that 200/250 AFTER ALL DEDUCTIONS, meaning that's their profit after paying all employees, costs, insurances business and employee, any and all other writeoffs, etc. So the whiners complaining about tax increases hurting small businesses need to understand that only if they profit >200k/250k that it start to cut into their profits via tax increases. OR..... these business owners could, if they profit > 200/250, spend that excessive profit down to 200/250 for the writeoff by buying business equipment, growing their business, creating growth for all of the US. These clones acting as if an increase over 200/250 is going to hurt business are really just not aware of what they are talking about. It will only affect them if they start doing really, really well, then tehy have the option of reinvestment or paying extra tax.

Would you listen to this guy. Wants the government to take all the rich man's money and distribute it among the monetarily challenged and HE calls someone else a socialist. Too freakin' funny! I just want the rich to reinvest a lot of their profits. As fro me a socialist, nothing compared to CanuckintheUSA; he gets all the socialist goodies, yet sounds like one of you neo-cons. How many times do you have to be told that I am not a neo-con? Well? How many? You don't seem to understand things very well and have to be told over and over again. Say what you want, it is plain as day that you want the government to take the majority of a financially endowed person's income and don't care a bit about investment. No, I want taxes raised to force reinvestment, but it doesn't make your argument juicy, so you must project that I want the gov to take all their money; I would rather they reinvest a lot of it to create jobs, growth, etc. But just keep your fantasy going to pretend you have an argument for me wanting high taxes. Or, if you had an argument, you could show me a major federal tax cut that has actually helped the economy and not hurt it.