Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire is Not a Tax Increase

I don't know how you can say that. Who do you think builds, maintains, cleans and houses those yachts?

Who do you think sells and maintains that jewelry?

Who paints and sells that art?

Who benefits when the wealthy go on vacation? Who gets them to their location in the travel industry, who takes care of them in the hotel industry, who sells to them in the marketing industry, and who do they eat from when they are there?

I promise they are not "RICH" people.

BTW, you can add to that list "tithes and offerings," because as one who works in the denomination we see a direct correlation between the giving of "big donors" and the effect of our budget and the jobs of those ministering here and abroad.

Like I said before, it is real simple, just ask yourself this one question: Would you rather rich people spend their own money, or would you rather rich bureaucrats spend more of other people's money?

I affirm the need for general taxation to pay for public needs, but when a country becomes this top heavy it is time for the people to standup and say "enough is a enough!" What percentage of ANYONE'S income is too much? Is it 30%, 50%, 75%?

 

:thumbs: That is correct. The business owner has a house payment and other possible debts; and he is use to a certain level of income, right? So, that income level goes from 275,000 to 255,000. That is enough for anyone to live off of, they need to share their wealth. Spread it around.

Ok, but what happens in the real world?

The the extra 20,000 doesn't go to help the poor! No it disappears into Government waste and bureaucracy as one of Michelle Obama's outings costs this much in less than a few hours.

Meanwhile, back at the "rich" business owners house, he has a dilemma of balancing his shortfall. If he has to choose between lowering his own income where by he might need to move into a smaller home, sell some of his toys or downsize in some way personally; versus letting Mario the part-time janitor go and giving his duties over to one of his other employees, which option do you think he will choose?

Multiply this by thousands and you see the effect it has on all the "Mario's" of the world. They get downsized, while the government gets upsized and more corrupt!

 

He might do either. He might choose to cut an employees job to keep his at the desired level, or he might cut his own spending. Either way it hurts the "little people" for the reason I explained above.

Oh, so because its not enough for one employee you don't think its going to affect his decision on hiring, raises and future salaries of his current workers? What about the lawn guy or the pool boy he used to employee?

Naw, you may be right, let's send the extra $13K to the Government, they know how to spend it more efficiently, right?

 

Tell that to them as they wait in the unemployment line because the Government needed another grant for a display of Jesus in Urine. (a real thing paid for by tax payers)

You are setting up a false dichotomy. I don't think it has to be either or. I don't believe Government needs to be taxing ANYONE ANYMORE (I mean no more increase, I don't oppose taxation all together)! They need to clean out the corruption and DOWNSIZE!

You just conceded that raising their taxes would affect charities, yet you maintain it wouldn't affect their own employees? I don't understand how you can't connect those dots. Choosing between cutting your own salary or not hiring that new employee, or firing that employee, or not giving raises. The business owner gets to make that choice.

That's ok to be wrong. It is still a free country...well, until this kind of "more taxation won't hurt" logic takes over anyway. :tear:

 

InTheLight,

I'll give you another "real world" example. I'll use rounded off numbers for simplicity.

I started an LLC several years back with a partner. The business was bringing in around $2000 a month. Now, as business owners we had a choice to divide the profits and each make about $1000 a month and do the work all ourselves; or we could hire someone part-time to help take care of some of the work and take much less profit ourselves. We chose the latter option.

Now, if the government were to take $500 a month away in taxes leaving us only $1500 we would have probably chosen to do the work ourselves and not hire anyone to help us.

Obviously that is on a smaller scale, but you get the point. Business owners must decide whether to keep their income at a level they are used to by cutting expenses in their business elsewhere (which affects their employees), or to drop their own income (which affects others they would have paid for goods and services). And even if they go with dropping their own income, do you think they are going to want to hire new people, or give raises after having to take a pay cut themselves? I don't know how you can't see that this would affect the middle and lower class, I really don't

 

Enough said then. What does it matter how "rare" you think it is, if this is true? Unless you think raising taxes on the owners helps his employees in any instance, then what does the frequency of it's negativity even matter? If the Government isn't spending the money more effectively and if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts ANY business or their employee, then why do it?!?

Unless you can make a strong case for the Government raising taxes on the wealthy as being helpful to the employees and the middle class, then the matter of how RARE the negative impacts are is pointless.

 

Anybody else notice how often what used to be called a tax increase is now termed a revenue increase?

 

For some who work part-time it is, and I would think that for most who support themselves working multiple part-time jobs to lose $13.5k would be substantial.

 

Yes, and spending is now call "investments."

It makes me SICK!!! They think we are all stupid sheep who can't understand their big words. Unfortunately, too many of the voters are just that!:BangHead:

 

Yup- sheep headed for financial slaughter.

 

You already conceded that you didn't favor raising taxes on anyone and that the government doesn't spend it any more efficiently, so I don't understand your point in saying this.

You have just contradicted yourself. You already conceded that Government would not spend the wealthy man's money more effectively than he would, thus it could only be a benefit for society if first the corruption, overspending and ineffective spending of Government is corrected.

Yes, it was a bad idea. Its a "SOCIAList" idea. If instead the same amount the Government took out and put into their dead end system, they would have simply required every worker to invest that same amount in a reputable investment of their choice in the free market they would be much better off as would our economy.

Can you imagine the return on their investment if they would have invested the same amount in private investment firms which earn exponentially more than SS did?

Yes, and your rebuttal was that the negative effect on employees was RARE, and my point was: unless the benefit is greater than the negate effect, it doesn't matter how RARE the negate effect is...it's still negative and thus shouldn't be done. Point made and conceded.

I don't concede the rarity, I believe it is much more impacting than you think, but regardless if the positive doesn't outweigh the negative it doesn't matter.

 

You speak truth here.

 

You the man Salty! Unfortunately many Americans won't see this simple truth and will vote for a Prez that thinks sheep and walruses should be able to marry, and that we should fork out money to support them, while humans don't have jobs!

And give it a few years and it will get worse.

Thankfully the "invisible Kingdom" reigns right now, as the hyper-preterists tell us, so it is all really OK!

- Peace