Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5939)

Bloggingheads 09-06-2010 12:01 PM

Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 

georgep 09-06-2010 12:21 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Am I hearing Conn expressing some satisfaction that the stimulus hasn't worked, as in Republican electoral prospects is more important to him than whether the economy improves?

BornAgainDemocrat 09-06-2010 01:05 PM

Keynsian Economics Disproven?
 
Keynes proposed a higher not a lower rate of inflation, as the way to get real wages down. [I'll link to that as soon as I find my copy of General Theory] The real issue is how to create that inflation, whether via fiscal stimulus (Krugman and sons) or via monetary expansion (Milton Friedman and his followers). Bernanke is in the second camp, I think, but so far deflationary forces have more than counterbalanced his extraordinary expansion of the money supply. Look for further "quantitative easing" down the road.

[Correction: The aim of stimulus was to boost short-term employment (via. government programs and/or working-class tax cuts) and the aim of inflation was to create a new long-term full-employment equilibrium. So the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Keynes advocated both.]

BornAgainDemocrat 09-06-2010 01:29 PM

Speaker Boehner?
 
Obama should wish! Combined with Palin as his opponent and Jim Webb for VP he might actually have a chance in 2012.

Markos 09-06-2010 02:55 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Here's what I don't understand about objections to a return to slightly higher taxes on incomes over 250,000 dollars and the Republican claim that this will hurt small businesses and inhibit them from hiring new workers:

When a small business hires and pays a worker, as far as I understand it, the business can deduct that workers' salary from the gross income of the business. So the small business is taxed only on its net profits after it pays its overhead. That being the case, I don't see how a slightly higher tax rate on the business owners' net profits that exceed 250,000 dollars should discourage the owner from hiring or expanding the business. Especially when the net profits up to the 250,000 are taxed at the lower rate(s).

rcocean 09-06-2010 02:57 PM

Is Conn in favor of illegal immigration?
 
Beck of course, is not against "immigration", he's for the rule of law and against open borders and people walking into the country illegally.

Which I guess Conn is for, like the Chamber of Commerce, since he seems to agree with Friedman in labeling anyone who's against 'illegal immigration' as being against 'immigration'. A dishonest label.

Markos 09-06-2010 03:04 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
I am a one-person self-employed small business. In the mid-nineties when the Clinton tax hike on higher incomes went into effect I was directly affected. I had to pay the higher rates on the portion of my income that extended beyond the highest rate category. And I must say, I paid those taxes proudly with the conviction that I was helping to balance the federal budget and to pay the bills of our nation. And guess what: I had PLENTY enough money left over at that level of income.And if I had hired some workers, the deduction of their salaries from my gross income would have allowed me to pay less taxes while expanding my business.
I am disgusted with all the Republican griping about those tax rates. The George W. Bush tax cuts for the rich were unnecessary. And by the way, after the Clinton tax hikes that gave markets assurance that our government was being responsible about reducing the Reagan-generated deficits and debt, we had a long period of strong economic growth!

Ocean 09-06-2010 03:16 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Conn's statement about Glenn Beck's involvement with the Cordoba Center issue.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality (after minute 5 or so).

Reality.

I couldn't stomach the rest of his radio clips and participation in other shows. But the above is enough to show the reality behind the efforts to misinform.

I was very disappointed with Ann Friedman. She didn't seem to be prepared to push back or present facts to counter Conn's partisan views.

JonIrenicus 09-06-2010 05:07 PM

Sick of all the economic theory haziness
 
"The stimulus is not working because it was not big enough"

"The stimulus had no chance of working no matter how large it was"

"the stimulus should be focused in areas A/B/C to be effective"

"NO !!! it ought to be focused in areas X/Y/Z to hit the mark"



wtfh


Sometimes in my dreamworld I wish we had a magic reset button, then we could easily allow people to have near ALL the things they want and see the results. No excuses, no outs, does it work or not, no wiggle room based off not doing ENOUGH of what they wanted.


But then we do have scores of democracies and economies around the world, does comparative economic analysis tell us nothing?

How the hell are we supposed to make sense of this without some reference frame?

rcocean 09-06-2010 05:25 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Markos (Post 178043)
Here's what I don't understand about objections to a return to slightly higher taxes on incomes over 250,000 dollars and the Republican claim that this will hurt small businesses and inhibit them from hiring new workers:

Excellent Post. There is no strong correlation between low tax rates for the rich and economic growth. From the Great Depression to Reagan the times of greatest economic expansion came when the top tax rate was incredibly high by today's standards:

Top Rate (Top income bracket- thousands)
1933 - 63%
1940 - 81%
1951 - 91% ($400)
1963 - 91% ($400)
1971 - 71% ($200)
1980 - 70% ($215)
1986 - 50%
1993 - 39% ($89)

stephanie 09-06-2010 07:57 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Markos (Post 178043)
When a small business hires and pays a worker, as far as I understand it, the business can deduct that workers' salary from the gross income of the business. So the small business is taxed only on its net profits after it pays its overhead. That being the case, I don't see how a slightly higher tax rate on the business owners' net profits that exceed 250,000 dollars should discourage the owner from hiring or expanding the business. Especially when the net profits up to the 250,000 are taxed at the lower rate(s).

Right. Not only all this, which should be sufficient to demonstrate the point, but small businesses have lots they can do to control profits/taxes. For example, it's common to try and pay out profits beyond what was budgeted (conservatively) at year end (bonuses, etc.).

jacks_mind 09-06-2010 08:28 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
There is a general rule in Economics that every drop of 1% in unemployment the GDP will drop 2% from the potential GDP. This is called Okun's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okun%27s_law

this is an empirically derived law which this recession is inconsistent with the trend derived from previous recessions. Contrary to what Conn is saying, it has NOTHING to do with Keynesian Economics.

jacks_mind 09-06-2010 08:33 PM

Re: Is Conn in favor of illegal immigration?
 
aside: What I love is how that new AZ law was so perfectly and powerfully designed and targeted at that entire "open borders" and "people walking in" thing.

</end sarcasm>

fabrej 09-06-2010 09:29 PM

Re: Keynsian Economics
 
All this talk of Keynesian economics by people that do not understand Keynes is incredibly frustrating. They should pick up Alvin Hansen's "A Guide to Keynes" from Amazon used for 5 bucks. The idea of stimulus in the Keynesian sense is all about the multiplier, but in the era of Keynes the multiplier would have been spent on goods and services produced mainly in the country where the stimulus was occurring. The multiplier, depending on whether it was a govt spending or tax cut multiplier may have been a factor of 2, 3, 4....etc. However, in a country that creates next to nothing and is outsourcing more and more of its medium to high wage jobs, the multiplier is closer to 1 or possibly even < 1. That is why government stimulus in our modern economy is having very little impact. When we actually made things, the multiplier worked and monetary policy could take over when fiscal policy would "heat" things up. The thought of our federal government wasting more of our taxpayer's money with the intent of "priming the pump" simply put us deeper in the hole and increasing the burden of debt service payments for the next generation.

Whatfur 09-06-2010 09:45 PM

Re: Is Conn in favor of illegal immigration?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 178044)
Beck of course, is not against "immigration", he's for the rule of law and against open borders and people walking into the country illegally.

Which I guess Conn is for, like the Chamber of Commerce, since he seems to agree with Friedman in labeling anyone who's against 'illegal immigration' as being against 'immigration'. A dishonest label.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet but I did watch your clip and I extended your timetable also and nothing I heard resembles anything with which someone could come to the conclusion you did about what Conn is for. Can you clarify what I may have missed?

Whatfur 09-06-2010 09:53 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178047)
Conn's statement about Glenn Beck's involvement with the Cordoba Center issue.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality (after minute 5 or so).

Reality.

I couldn't stomach the rest of his radio clips and participation in other shows. But the above is enough to show the reality behind the efforts to misinform.

I was very disappointed with Ann Friedman. She didn't seem to be prepared to push back or present facts to counter Conn's partisan views.

FYI, your second clip is a subset of your first. Google is dangerous. I am afraid to once again ask what was being misrepresented? Did you not like the Beck relationship linking thing? I guess I find them a bit overwrought myself but I would be interested to know what you found to be misrepresented.

[added] ...in the middle of your Conn clip you will hear him say "I could be wrong" but you are right...he was.

Ocean 09-06-2010 10:10 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 178078)
FYI, your second clip is a subset of your first. Google is dangerous. I am afraid to once again ask what was being misrepresented? Did you not like the Beck relationship linking thing? I guess I find them a bit overwrought myself but I would be interested to know what you found to be misrepresented.

[added] ...in the middle of your Conn clip you will hear him say "I could be wrong" but you are right...he was.

That's a feature to the art of misinforming others. Since a lot of people don't want to be completed burned and discredited by repeatedly lying, the trick is to say something like "I could be wrong", or "I don't know but I heard...", or "I'm not sure...". It is common that people who trust the source, for whatever reason, will remember the alleged fact but not pick up on those brief disqualifiers. And that's how misinformation gets passed on. Watch Fox. It's filled with the same. This has been exposed extensively, if you care to look into it.

Whatfur 09-06-2010 10:42 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178079)
That's a feature to the art of misinforming others. Since a lot of people don't want to be completed burned and discredited by repeatedly lying, the trick is to say something like "I could be wrong", or "I don't know but I heard...", or "I'm not sure...". It is common that people who trust the source, for whatever reason, will remember the alleged fact but not pick up on those brief disqualifiers. And that's how misinformation gets passed on. Watch Fox. It's filled with the same. This has been exposed extensively, if you care to look into it.

You watch alot of FOX then?

So you think Conn threw out the "I don't think Beck has spent much time on the Park 51 issue" to get people to think that Beck hadn't when he knew Beck had? What would be gained by that?

In any case, the misrepresentation you spoke of pointed to the Beck clips...that was the topic I looked to be addressed with my question but its not important. I will just say that I felt Beck did not say anything others have not already said and actually stressed the constitutional legality allowing them to build more than most.

Ocean 09-06-2010 11:08 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 178085)
You watch alot of FOX then?

No, I don't suffer from that ailment. But I've seen a sample large enough to identify the style.

Quote:

So you think Conn threw out the "I don't think Beck has spent much time on the Park 51 issue" to get people to think that Beck hadn't when he knew Beck had? What would be gained by that?
If Conn doesn't know enough about Beck, why would he even make a comment about him? Or he knows and intentionally misrepresents. Perhaps he didn't know, and he has learned (actively or passively) how to say whatever he sees fit to enhance his perspective without worrying whether it's true or not. He seems very good at challenging his interlocutors and asking for specific facts. So, I have reasons to suspect that he is mindful of what he is doing.

Quote:

In any case, the misrepresentation you spoke of pointed to the Beck clips...that was the topic I looked to be addressed with my question but its not important. I will just say that I felt Beck did not say anything others have not already said and actually stressed the constitutional legality allowing them to build more than most.
Beck takes the same argument that others make to a level of absurdity by building on it and finding imaginary links to all kinds of other conspiracies. It's pitiful or clownish or both.

Whatfur 09-06-2010 11:44 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178086)
No, I don't suffer from that ailment. But I've seen a sample large enough to identify the style.

And this sample you refer to...is it when your friends point you there because O'Reilly or Beck or...have said something particularly witty? This kind of gets to the heart of my comment in the other vlog where you were last seen cupping cherry blossoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178086)
If Conn doesn't know enough about Beck, why would he even make a comment about him?

Ann brought him up I believe to which his initial comment WAS something to the effect of "I don't watch/listen to much Beck but..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178086)
Or he knows and intentionally misrepresents.

Again I do not fathom what is gained by this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178086)
Perhaps he didn't know, and he has learned (actively or passively) how to say whatever he sees fit to enhance his perspective without worrying whether it's true or not. He seems very good at challenging his interlocutors and asking for specific facts. So, I have reasons to suspect that he is mindful of what he is doing.

I guess we see it differently, when someone says "I don't watch all that much of X" or "I could be wrong". I simply assume that person is telling me that what follows needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If someone was really trying to "misrepresent" something would it not behoove them to take a more authoritarian tone? Either way they can be called on it if they are mistaken (like you do here). I have been listening to an hour of Beck most every morning for quite some time while I go through stuff to start my day at work. Granted I am half listening, but if you were to ask me how he felt about the mosque I may have had a better guess than Conn but I would not have been able to tell you the details I now know from watching your clips.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178086)
Beck takes the same argument that others make to a level of absurdity by building on it and finding imaginary links to all kinds of other conspiracies. It's pitiful or clownish or both.

Sometimes. In so many words, Obama questioned the "wisdom" of the choice and similarily I question the wisdom and motives of the Imam. His associations are important in evaluating his sincerity. The one to one links were not "imaginary".

Whatfur 09-06-2010 11:57 PM

The Dems 2006 6 point plan.
 
Six-point plan

Ocean 09-07-2010 12:06 AM

Re: The Dems 2006 6 point plan.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 178090)

Good follow up. Thank you.

Always Cynical 09-07-2010 01:50 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Conn Carroll makes $250K at Heritage and then, by his own admission, does a few writing gigs (clients, Conn?) on the side.

Conn has to pay taxes on those writing gigs. Just like every other American who must pay takes on income, whether W-2 or 1099.

Somehow this is unfair or predatorial in nature against Conn?

Will someone please explain Conn's Frank Luntzian logic (or blatant lack of common sense) on this one?

Don Zeko 09-07-2010 01:54 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
The "small businesses need higher income bracket tax cuts" argument has always puzzled me. If someone is filing as a sole proprietor, aren't business expenses tax deductible? If so, does that mean that a higher marginal tax rate would actually increase the small businessman's incentive to invest more money in the business instead of saving his earnings or spending them himself?

Always Cynical 09-07-2010 02:00 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
While Mr. Carroll's position on everything is rather basic (Mr. Carroll cares only about himself and his financial backers and the rest of society means nothing), I find Ms. Friedman more depressing.

Ms. Friedman displays such a blatant lack of basic information and civics that one can only wonder if she is somehow related to the infamous S.E. Cupp. Clearly, Ms. Friedman has some Sugar Daddy or Rabbi that guided her and her parents through the correct prep school and Ivy League institution before placing her in the Georgetown Cocktail Club, which is more commonly known as the think tank and media community in D.C.

That this young woman has clearly never worked hard in her life is beyond question. But how, prey tell, can her prep school, Ivy League college, and The American Prospect defend her clear absence of intellectual acumen and rudimentary knowledge?

Is Ms. Friedman really anything more than yet another example of the oligarchial nature and accompanying dumbing down of American society?

Don Zeko 09-07-2010 02:29 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Always Cynical (Post 178096)
While Mr. Carroll's position on everything is rather basic (Mr. Carroll cares only about himself and his financial backers and the rest of society means nothing), I find Ms. Friedman more depressing.

Ms. Friedman displays such a blatant lack of basic information and civics that one can only wonder if she is somehow related to the infamous S.E. Cupp. Clearly, Ms. Friedman has some Sugar Daddy or Rabbi that guided her and her parents through the correct prep school and Ivy League institution before placing her in the Georgetown Cocktail Club, which is more commonly known as the think tank and media community in D.C.

That this young woman has clearly never worked hard in her life is beyond question. But how, prey tell, can her prep school, Ivy League college, and The American Prospect defend her clear absence of intellectual acumen and rudimentary knowledge?

Is Ms. Friedman really anything more than yet another example of the oligarchial nature and accompanying dumbing down of American society?

Comments like this would be a it more useful if you could provide some examples of Friedman's "blatant lack of basic knowledge" or evidence of Conn's conflicts of interest. Care to provide some?

rcocean 09-07-2010 02:53 AM

Re: Is Conn in favor of illegal immigration?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jacks_mind (Post 178074)
aside: What I love is how that new AZ law was so perfectly and powerfully designed and targeted at that entire "open borders" and "people walking in" thing.

</end sarcasm>

Yeah, that's right, because any law that isn't perfect and achieve 100 percent of its stated objectives is no good.

And welcome Jack, Your posts are substantive, full of facts and informed detail & well-reasoned - I hope you can do as well as Kez.

</end sarcasm>

DenvilleSteve 09-07-2010 09:32 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by georgep (Post 178032)
Am I hearing Conn expressing some satisfaction that the stimulus hasn't worked, as in Republican electoral prospects is more important to him than whether the economy improves?

I think you are correct. Conn is not a good spokesman for the republican side. Whatever rulling clique there is that is guaranteeing John Bohner the job as speaker of the house has to be identified and destroyed. We have to balance the budget. I can accept that taxes can't be increased because that will hurt the economy, but cutting taxes now? Over the short term that will increase the deficit. Which is nuts. Republicans have to be willing to slash spending. Replace medicare, medicaid and obama care with government run clinics and hospitals that offer rationed, low cost health care. Clamp down on disabiity payments, food stamps, housing subsidies. Single adults should not be getting money from the government to live alone in an apartment. At least require that people double or triple up. Or have group homes for those who cannot support themselves.

DenvilleSteve 09-07-2010 09:43 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 178095)
The "small businesses need higher income bracket tax cuts" argument has always puzzled me. If someone is filing as a sole proprietor, aren't business expenses tax deductible? If so, does that mean that a higher marginal tax rate would actually increase the small businessman's incentive to invest more money in the business instead of saving his earnings or spending them himself?

It is important not to over tax the people and businesses which employ people. A business uses profits to expand and grow the business. If the greedy government jumps in and takes half the profits, then the business can only grow half as much and hire half as many people as maket conditions allow.

What grows the economy more, opening a 2nd hardware store that sells its expertise on the latest construction materials and equipment, or the goverment spending $500 million to build a high school building?

Whatfur 09-07-2010 09:59 AM

Re: Is Conn in favor of illegal immigration?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 178076)
I haven't watched the whole thing yet but I did watch your clip and I extended your timetable also and nothing I heard resembles anything with which someone could come to the conclusion you did about what Conn is for. Can you clarify what I may have missed?

I now have watched the whole thing and can conclude that there are actually two "dishonest labels" employed in your post...or one and a very incongruent guess.

conncarroll 09-07-2010 10:02 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 178047)
Conn's statement about Glenn Beck's involvement with the Cordoba Center issue.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality.

Reality (after minute 5 or so).

Reality.

I couldn't stomach the rest of his radio clips and participation in other shows. But the above is enough to show the reality behind the efforts to misinform.

I was very disappointed with Ann Friedman. She didn't seem to be prepared to push back or present facts to counter Conn's partisan views.

Thanks for the links Ocean. As I said in the session, I don't watch Glenn Beck's show. I don't work for Media Matters. The most Beck I ever watch is what Stewart and Olbermann clip. I do listen to his radio show occasionally though and I remember him being more supportive of the mosque. Which is actually what your first clip shows.

Ocean 09-07-2010 10:18 AM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 178111)
Thanks for the links Ocean.

You're welcome.

Quote:

As I said in the session, I don't watch Glenn Beck's show. I don't work for Media Matters. The most Beck I ever watch is what Stewart and Olbermann clip. I do listen to his radio show occasionally though and I remember him being more supportive of the mosque. Which is actually what your first clip shows.
Considering the amount of anti-Obama, pro-Republican, pro-Palin propaganda that Beck disseminates, it may be a good idea for you to keep an eye on him. At least it will keep you informed about where some of the craziness in your camp comes from. I grant that it wouldn't be a most pleasant experience to have to sit through so much nonsense...

The first clip shows Beck explaining how and why he has changed his mind from a previous comment he had made in May, which was somewhat favorable towards the Center. He proceeds to extensively "blackboard" his way into all kinds of conspiracies behind its construction.

Don Zeko 09-07-2010 12:59 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 178109)
It is important not to over tax the people and businesses which employ people. A business uses profits to expand and grow the business. If the greedy government jumps in and takes half the profits, then the business can only grow half as much and hire half as many people as maket conditions allow.

This is what I'm asking about. Aren't business expenses tax-deductible? If so, doesn't that mean that if small business owner X makes $1,000 more in profit this year than last year and is already in the top tax bracket, he/she has a choice between keeping 65% of the money for personal use while giving the rest to Uncle Sam, or spending 100% of it to hire new workers, expand production, or whatever? Wouldn't this mean that a higher marginal tax rate would actually encourage small business owners to spend more of their earnings on expanding the business, rather than saving the money or spending it on personal consumption?

rcocean 09-07-2010 01:53 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 178118)
This is what I'm asking about. Aren't business expenses tax-deductible? If so, doesn't that mean that if small business owner X makes $1,000 more in profit this year than last year and is already in the top tax bracket, he/she has a choice between keeping 65% of the money for personal use while giving the rest to Uncle Sam, or spending 100% of it to hire new workers, expand production, or whatever? Wouldn't this mean that a higher marginal tax rate would actually encourage small business owners to spend more of their earnings on expanding the business, rather than saving the money or spending it on personal consumption?

You're absolutely correct. Leaving aside that many small businesses get tax credits for R&D and hiring, the higher tax rate would provide an incentive to grow the business and later sell it for a capital gain - which has always been taxed at a lower rate than income.

Don Zeko 09-07-2010 02:42 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 178122)
You're absolutely correct. Leaving aside that many small businesses get tax credits for R&D and hiring, the higher tax rate would provide an incentive to grow the business and later sell it for a capital gain - which has always been taxed at a lower rate than income.

So why on God's green earth do Republicans persist in this idiotic talking point that raising taxes on the wealthy will retard job growth by squeezing the profits of economy-driving small businesses, when even if you accept their premises about who is affected by upper-bracket tax cuts and their premises about the necessity of small businesses for job creation, their argument is still the opposite of reality? I was concerned about making this point because I don't hear it from anyone, which made me suspect that there is some obvious reason that I'm wrong. But if I'm not, why don't I hear this rebuttal from, well, anyone?

Ocean 09-07-2010 02:54 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Perhaps the Republican noise machine is impervious to rebuttal, rcocean and you. Ask Beck why. ;)

Whatfur 09-07-2010 03:19 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 178122)
You're absolutely correct. Leaving aside that many small businesses get tax credits for R&D and hiring, the higher tax rate would provide an incentive to grow the business and later sell it for a capital gain - which has always been taxed at a lower rate than income.

Businesses do not pay taxes based on expenses it pays taxes based on income. Do either of you actually know what is on an income statement? To say business expenses are tax deductable is deceptive at best. Very few get credits for R&D and hiring and any they do are generally not in the form of tax breaks. I would bet even fewer go into business thinking that they are going to make a killing in capital gains when they sell it. That's silly. This whole thread and its progression is hogwash.

DenvilleSteve 09-07-2010 03:24 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 178118)
This is what I'm asking about. Aren't business expenses tax-deductible? If so, doesn't that mean that if small business owner X makes $1,000 more in profit this year than last year and is already in the top tax bracket, he/she has a choice between keeping 65% of the money for personal use while giving the rest to Uncle Sam, or spending 100% of it to hire new workers, expand production, or whatever? Wouldn't this mean that a higher marginal tax rate would actually encourage small business owners to spend more of their earnings on expanding the business, rather than saving the money or spending it on personal consumption?

I see your point, but consider how an investor or lender is taxed. The business owner makes $1 million in profit in 2010. If that money is invested in another business, by purchasing IPO stock or making a a loan, you first have to pay taxes to the feds. The higher the tax rate, the less there is to invest.

Don Zeko 09-07-2010 03:28 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 178136)
I see your point, but consider how an investor or lender is taxed. The business owner makes $1 million in profit in 2010. If that money is invested in another business, by purchasing IPO stock or making a a loan, you first have to pay taxes to the feds. The higher the tax rate, the less there is to invest.

Sure, if you're investing in another business that's the case. But the argument isn't that we can't tax the super-wealthy because they include most potential investors in a new business, it's that higher upper-bracket tax rates will harm small businesses because the owners of those businesses will pay more taxes on their income. If they can avoid those taxes by using their business's earnings to fund expansion of the business, then don't higher tax rates actually encourage some investment?

rcocean 09-07-2010 03:33 PM

Re: Tentless Edition (Ann Friedman & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 178130)
So why on God's green earth do Republicans persist in this idiotic talking point that raising taxes on the wealthy will retard job growth by squeezing the profits of economy-driving small businesses, when even if you accept their premises about who is affected by upper-bracket tax cuts and their premises about the necessity of small businesses for job creation, their argument is still the opposite of reality? I was concerned about making this point because I don't hear it from anyone, which made me suspect that there is some obvious reason that I'm wrong. But if I'm not, why don't I hear this rebuttal from, well, anyone?

Well, because the people who donate most to both the republican and democrat party are wealthy. Why do think Hedge fund managers get their salary taxed at the same level as Capital Gains? Why if the mortgage interest deduction is really to encourage first time home buyers (The American dream) why isn't it capped and apply only to your first home? The entire tax code is riddled with loopholes and deductions that favor only the well-to-do.
And why is it that everyone is talking about cutting SS benefits instead of raising cap on the SS Payroll tax ? The answer is obvious.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.