If only we could just educate our people, this debate would be very different (not necessarily in this forum--I mean on a national level). Instead, as a nation, we prefer short-term fixes to long-term problems. It's the easy money we want, not the long, hard-earned dollar. (Read Andrew Bacevich on this.)

People vote against their own interests because attack ads and dirty politics work. Big Money reframes debates to be about silly things that aren't threatened like freedom to whatever (well, unless your Muslim or poor...) and chicken sandwiches. Yes, we have real issues. And yes, certain freedoms are threatened. --Just not the ones we're paying attention to. Sometimes I watch the news (which I generally avoid doing because there are better sources), and I think that everything we hold dear must be under attack. Then I remember that fear is a great way to drive ratings. And it all comes back to money and education and long-term vs. short-term interests.

I find it interesting that with the diverse perspectives here we can come to some kind of consensus on some pretty big issues. Yet, Congress can't. Like I said, I think it comes down to education and delaying gratification and money in politics. This is probably an oversimplification, but resolving those things would move us far enough forward to start getting into where we really disagree. It would also mean our country would be in a far healthier place to have a serious debate about compromise and where we disagree.

(Full disclosure--I'm a public school teacher. I really believe in education.)

It's been the same system since the Reagan years, pro and con. You'd hope both parties would put together their better plans. Yes, Soc. Sec, Medicare, and state/muni pensions, need updating with some personal responsibility put in their but don't forget why they were put in their in the first place (plus a study showing most lose the ability to make good financial decisions starting at age 55 - hence the scams). The fact that most were out of the stock market during the past bull (2009-?) should concern the decision makers. In aggregate, most Americans aren't great investors or at making prudent financial plans. Food for thought?

On the other hand, these relatively low rates were a chance to upgrade our infrastructure at low cost and put people to work now. Goldman's chairman reminded everyone the US population will hit over 400 million in the investible future. So we delay until rates are higher and more people are back on the road before starting construction. And on it goes (could have used this when the D's had the house as well as now).

Add: rather interesting how world affairs (including drones, climate change, free trade) are on the back burner

At this point, it's easy to imagine eBaying all my furnishings and using the proceeds for hiking.. Screw politics

Edited by hknewman on 08/14/2012 06:56:16 MDT.

Check this out as this is the "bottom line"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc

Obama has not done anything promised: cutting the debt in half, unemplyment 5.6%, reaching across the isle ect ect. By all measurable marks he has failed. Did you know he is the one who gutted medicare 714,000,000,000 he took and alocated it for obama care. I am very conservative and he has not done one thing to reach my side of the isle. But more than that he is no Clinton who met in the middle with Newt and got things done. He has promised to further nationalize industries, claims government success for private accomplishments, and is treasonous with our national security. I suggest that Dem's have a coup and save their party and nominate Hillary so at least we will recognize our country in 2016.

I refuse to vote for someone who supports drilling every wilderness area for oil, to "end our dependence on foreign oil so we can have American oil" as Romeny said. I know exactly what that means: the drilling rigs will roll on into and over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as other wilderness areas.

No thanks.

Mathew - you have all the right wing talking points down very good : )

I am worried that Romney will sink in popularity and the Rs will nominate someone even worse. Fortunately, the convention is soon and then it will be difficult...

Thanks for your response, Brad

"I meet with new prospects and customers every week and 90% are concerned about the future (ie Bush tax cuts, automatic tax cuts, more regulatory requirements, more government involvement, etc)..."

The Rs with D support put in tax cuts for wealthy people - especially the 15% rate for carried interest and capital gains - without paying for it. Now Obama wants to end this - we can't just give tax cuts to a few people and add to our debt. Rs refuse.

So based on this you're going to vote against Obama? He seems to be the responsible person here. Your anger is mis-directed.

Whats funny to me is the Rs say they want to reduce taxes for "the job creators". If they said "super rich and big corporations" voters wouldn't go along. Whenever they say "job creators" know this is just a focus group tested phrase but they really mean "super rich and big corporations".

So, you're a small businessman. (Hypothetically) what's your average tax as a percentage of income - I bet it's about 40% when you include the employer portion of social security. These guys are doing nothing for you. Why do you vote for them?


"If you would spend some time talking with the small business community you would find out we are mad as hell with comments like you didn't build that."

That's not what Obama said. It's been twisted by political propogandists.

Obama said that small business success depends on partnership with government - roads, police, military, education,...

The right wing has us thinking the government is bad so we should replace it with private companies - an opportunity for some big businesses to make a bunch of money.

We need to get back to the post WWII frame of mind - we are the best country and we can do anything - combination of government and private businesses...

Just out - Romney never paid less than 13 percent of his income in federal taxes http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-tax-rate-always-least-13-percent-165815134--abc-news-politics.html

You small businesses and middle income people paid maybe 40% when you include employer portion of social security?

The proposals are to reduce taxes on "the job creators" (super rich and big corporations) by half, so that will put Romney tax at 6.5%

There's an evil geniousness to this. The upper half of income people pay significant tax and will vote for someone who says they're going to reduce taxes. Too bad they're only reducing taxes for "the job creators".

"Just out - Romney never paid less than 13 percent of his income in federal taxes http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-tax-rate-always-least-13-percent-165815134--abc-news-politics.html

You small businesses and middle income people paid maybe 40% when you include employer portion of social security?

The proposals are to reduce taxes on "the job creators" (super rich and big corporations) by half, so that will put Romney tax at 6.5%

There's an evil geniousness to this. The upper half of income people pay significant tax and will vote for someone who says they're going to reduce taxes. Too bad they're only reducing taxes for "the job creators"."



Where to start? Oh, never mind......

I'm just grateful these forums are not influential in any way.

"Where to start? Oh, never mind......

I'm just grateful these forums are not influential in any way."

Aw, c'mon, David. I was looking forward to hearing your justification for a 13% tax rate on a $20,000,000/year job creator like Mitt, who derives most of his income from interest/dividends/hedge fund profits(carried interest?). If it's up to your usual high standard, you might even influence me. ;0)

Hey Tom, nice to hear from you. ; )

I doubt any post on BPL influences anyone's thinking about any thing. I'm certain my posts don't.

I haven't seen any proposal that reduces tax rates by half, but maybe I missed it.

The way I see it, capital gains tax is the "price" paid for realizing capital gains. For the wealthy, capital gains are often easily manipulated. Raise the "price" of capital gains and you will see less of it. I share this view with JFK, Bill Clinton and '09 Barack Obama, among others.

If my understanding of carried interest is correct, I think it should be taxed as regular income.

One issue I have with the above post is the confusion regarding tax rates. Although I doubt it's intentional.

Romney's 13% rate is probably calculated with the net tax paid as the numerator and gross income as the denominator. The 40% rate is the marginal rate on every dollar earned over a certain amount. Even if you hit the highest bracket your effective rate will be lower, possibly much lower if you have enough deductions.

I see comparing the two as apples-to-oranges.

Jerry counted paying both halves of FICA, but that doesn't change the point.

"I doubt any post on BPL influences anyone's thinking about any thing. I'm certain my posts don't."

I share your doubt, probably to the dismay of some. ;)

"I haven't seen any proposal that reduces tax rates by half, but maybe I missed it."

I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, by Ryan's budget proposal
takes a serious chunk off the top rates, not 50%, but close, IIRC. As would be expected, the peasants do not fare so well.

"The way I see it, capital gains tax is the "price" paid for realizing capital gains. For the wealthy, capital gains are often easily manipulated. Raise the "price" of capital gains and you will see less of it. I share this view with JFK, Bill Clinton and '09 Barack Obama, among others."

I don't doubt this for a moment. I would tend to agree myself under current conditions. As long as the political system remains as it is, the rich will have no shortage of loopholes to manipulate. For me the deeper question is what kind of society do we want to be. If the answer is that we should continue to do business as usual, the rich will be free to manipulate their capital gains and your view will continue to be accurate. If the answer is that they have a certain financial obligation to the society that provided them the opportunity to prosper, then such loopholes can easily be closed, and such gains will be fully exposed to taxation.

"Romney's 13% rate is probably calculated with the net tax paid as the numerator and gross income as the denominator. The 40% rate is the marginal rate on every dollar earned over a certain amount. Even if you hit the highest bracket your effective rate will be lower, possibly much lower if you have enough deductions."

That is my understanding as well. My problem is with the deductions available to the very rich. Carried interest is merely one egregious example. Like yourself, I think it should be taxed as ordinary income. Were that the case, I suspect Mitt would be paying substantially more than 13% of his gross income in taxes.

"Romney's 13% rate is probably calculated with the net tax paid as the numerator and gross income as the denominator. The 40% rate is the marginal rate on every dollar earned over a certain amount."

Romney's income must be mostly long term capital gain, perhaps with some carried interest thrown in. That would be 15%. Plus throw in a couple tricks to make it 13%.


"Raise the "price" of capital gains and you will see less of it."

Long term capital gain rate was 28% until 1997, then 20% until 2003, then 15% since then.

It seems like if anything the economy has gotten progressively worse over that period.

Of course that's only one factor, but

When you raise capital gain tax rate then people tend to leave there money in the business. When you lower tax rate people take money out and start gambling with it causing speculative bubbles. Wealthy people that have lots of capital gains, will have more money if they don't pay as much tax, but the stock, real estate, and other investments will be relatively the same - more money going after the same stuff will raise prices - speculative bubble.

If you lower taxes on regular people, they tend to spend it, and that is much better for businesses to have people spending.

Forget the social engineering - everyone should pay the same tax rate except maybe poorer people should pay a little less.

That is just wrong on many levels.

Honolulu is a village?

well put Kat...and I agree....bad taste.

Jerry,

"So based on this you're going to vote against Obama? He seems to be the responsible person here. Your anger is mis-directed."

Not sure what you mean. I will not vote for him for many reasons. My comment is referring to businesses are concerned about his overall strategy of growing governments role. Ever time the government gets involved you get: inefficient spending, more regulatory control, more paper work, etc. I'm not picking a specific change, just his overall objective.

"Whats funny to me is the Rs say they want to reduce taxes for "the job creators". If they said "super rich and big corporations" voters wouldn't go along. Whenever they say "job creators" know this is just a focus group tested phrase but they really mean "super rich and big corporations"

"Companies with fewer than 500 employees created 64% of net new US jobs from Sept 1992 through 2010, though they employee just 55% of the private sector workforce. (Source Bureau of labor statistics)." The Small Business Administration definition for small business is less than 500 employees (some exceptions based on certain industries). This group represents the largest share of job creation. This group is also the group most impacted by government regulation, tax increases, etc.

Personally, I have two business partners and we have approx. 65 employees spread across 20+ states. When federal and local governments get more involved the result is more cost for my company. The health care act is thousands of pages long (too long for politicians to read) and with many requirements. How do you think I learn what my compliance requirements are? It's called accounting, lawyer and insurance consultant fees. This is just for compliance. I also have seen an increase in my health insurance premium (28% this year alone-not all from HCA) for the changes (ie coverage of kids to 26, no max on plans, etc). I pay part of the increase, but most of the cost is just passed to the employee. (Just for the record when I started the company we paid full family coverage for every employee, but can't any longer). Want another example, how about state sales tax. Every state has special laws and staying up with compliance is a nightmare. Unlike a Government who pass the cost to the taxpayer, I can't pass my cost to the customer. So when an administration is looking to grow their role we get fearful. Obama points out big corps and super rich as who he is going after, but he is really just socking it to this group of job creators.

"That's not what Obama said. It's been twisted by political propogandists.

Obama said that small business success depends on partnership with government - roads, police, military, education,..."

Our success doesn't depend on a partnership with the government. Our success depends on providing a service or product that the customer is willing to buy at a profit to the company. BTW all the things you listed above are paid for by tax dollars we all pay. If his statement is true then why do we have 10million unemployed people? Shouldn't they leverage the same government investment and build their own company?

"The right wing has us thinking the government is bad so we should replace it with private companies - an opportunity for some big businesses to make a bunch of money."

80-90% (hard to get exact %) of all private business are small businesses. Most of the right wing is concerned about these businesses and not the big corps or super rich. Government involved has a much larger impact on us. The big corps have large accounting, legal, HR departments to handle these changes. We don't. And yes I think small private businesses like these are much better for the country than government involvement. Why would you want to grow government when you can grow private sector? Growing the govt cost taxpayers money and private sector pays taxes. Why is that so hard to figure out?

So many of you live in the political world and get caught up in all the hoopla (ie A big corp didn't pay taxes, super rich, lobbyist, 99%, etc). This from both parties. The real world is much different and my fear is voters don't understand the real world. Some are so focused on socking it to the super rich (ie Bush tax cuts, etc) that they are willing to take out the rest of use. Sure changes need to be made and I'm for removing special tax treatments for the super rich. Just don't take the rest of us out.

Brad

The pic can be misleading- its from Crawford, Texas.



Really though- that kid's look is classic!

Brad

I don't think the Republican party cares about small businesses.

For example, small businesses tax rate is much higher than super rich and big corporations.

I don't want to sock it to the super rich and big corporations, I just want them to pay their fair share of taxes and quit telling the government what to do.

Both parties want to make government ever bigger - based on what they've done in the past. If you believe that the Republicans will make government smaller, "I have a bridge to sell you" : )


You wouldn't be able to provide a service or product and there would be no customers without services provided by the government. We would be part of Great Britain, or Hitler's Germany. You would have no computers. There would be no highways for you, employees, customers to drive to your business on... That's all Obama was saying.


And it's too bad that there are so many unemployed people.

Germany did it better. Rather than laying off employees, the took less hours. The employees got less wages. The government chipped in and made up for some of the lost wages. Since there weren't so many unemployed people their economy is better.

We could have done more things like that but the Republicans don't want Obama re-elected so they won't agree to much of anything and the Democrats, who are also at least partly bought off by the same right wingers, didn't communicate to us very good any such proposals which might have forced the Republican's hands.

And there were a lot of things that could have been done the last 10s of years that would have avoided this.


We could vote for a third party, but the two parties have hurdles making this difficult.

We could vote for more rational Republicans and Democrats, phone them with our opinions, make donations,... Things are not nearly as bad as the 1930s and things eventually got better then. Hopefully, things will turn around in the near future.

Us citizens are super polarized right now based on irrelevant issues. If we could come together on common ground we could get rid of these bums that are controlling things right now.