I understand intimately

I read the tax rates and plan carefully. I also read actual legislation as it interests me. There are no good guys in this race, i just believe one is less bad. I am certain, because i have watched and listened to our president, that he doesn't understand how to grow the economy. and i believe that is what is needed most of all, more people working and a broader tax base. He could do it, but he hasn't and he won't.

Both parties cater to the wealthy (i'm not), and big business. Obama attacks the small and medium business's as well. Romney will protect his buddies, the collateral benefit to that would be a more business friendly environment leading to business optimism, investment and job growth in the real economy. If Obama was just talking about the super wealthy nobody would have a beef with it.

It's not wise to invest more (increase risk) in a time of anemic growth, high unemployment, the drumbeat of higher taxes on the few, and excessive spending that will be paid for at some point by higher taxes on the few.

I'd vote for the first person to offer to go to washington and undo things instead of getting them done. Every law negatively effects someones liberty.

My point is we need private sector jobs. We know we won't get it with Obama.
Hope and Change, Romney 2012

"real economy" is an interesting way of saying Asia.

Ben, I don't agee at all with the current tax system. I would change to a system where we all paid a low rate, the budget had to be balanced, and no deductions for anybody. But that's a different discussion. Niether of these guys will change it much.

However, if more people were working more taxes would be paid even with the existing tax code. If we don't get a lot more jobs things will remain stagnant.

I have some unearned income. I paid regular income taxes on the money i invested and the income I get from that already taxed money gets a favorable rate. It's the same for anybody with rentals or a mutual fund or whatever.

If this is changed the stock market will drop ( i don't really care cause its a racket anyway) and income producing real estate will drop in value overnight and rental prices will increase alot.

Mr Obama is ok with these outcomes because to him it is fair, and it might be to many. But the unintended consequences of that kind of move will end up hurting the people he alledgedly wants to protect.

We very simply need more jobs.

And no i'm not a republican.

Real economy doesn't mean asia to me.

As long as the average american measures success by how much cheap junk they can by asia will benefit disproportionally. Everybody has there reasons but many people don't buy american, as a result of that dollars go offshore. If we had more national pride more things would be made here providing better wages and less enviromental impacts. We'd actually be supporting our nieghbors and they would support us.

One of the cool things about backpacking is all the cottage business's that make good things here for me to buy.

Again we need jobs.......here

Where have all the private jobs gone to?

I think some of them have gone overseas as part of the ill conceaved trade deals. Clinton was responsible for many. Rs pushed them and he signed them. More trade deals during Bush. Obama is promoting trade deals.

I agree, neither Rs or Ds are doing much to fix this. Ds pushed a deal for government to buy American which would help but the Rs blocked it. Some of the stimulous was to develop technology like batteries and solar cells - some of that may create jobs.

Another loss of jobs is from automation by ever smarter computers.

It would help if we trained people for higher skilled jobs designing and maintaining these automatic systems, but you have to borrow $50K to get the education. We should go back to how it used to be where I got a top rate education and had to borrow only $3K which is $6K in today's dollars.

At least Obama pushed a deal where people's student loan interest would remain at a low level rather than large increases that would make large banks a lot of money.

Rick Adams,

Agree 100% with your post. I'm also a business owner who with two business partners built a business from nothing to 65+ employees 10 years later. Don't waste your time trying to explain what it is like trying to run your own business and the challenges because you have a bunch of experts who will set you straight. Mind you they have no experience running a business, but they are experts. Just ask them. Maybe they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Brad

Ouch Brad!

I've owned a duplex and a house I rented out - a teeny tiny business

I've worked most of my career for small start-up companies. I'm somewhat familiar with having enough capital to pay salaries and such.

Never been government employee, union member, welfare recipient, had a pension,...

I just think that the Rs play lip service to small business owners but actually are no better than the Ds

At least under the Ds, the middle income people do a little better so the economy does better so small businesses do better

And the Ds seem more likely to fix some of these large problems facing us

Jerry,

The dig is not at you. You and I agree on some things, but disagree on others. Your responses are always thought out and delivered with respect. We just disagree sometimes. Sometimes you think I'm pro Rep and make comments like "Rs play lip service...." Understand I don't like what either party has become and both cater to the powers that contribute money and get the votes. However I'm more for less government involvement, conservative spending and taxes as low as feasible. This aligns with some of the Rs rhetoric, but not their real intentions. Most of the Ds platform is contrary, but not all.

Brad

"At least under the Ds, the middle income people do a little better so the economy does better so small businesses do better"

I guess this depends on who you're reading and who you prefer to believe, since all sides claim their numbers are correct - but everybody's numbers always seem to add up to something different.

I did find the following interesting, from a Wall Street Journal article (yes, I can hear the left leaners now - well, it's the Wall Street Journal, you can't trust it!):

"Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.

For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%."

...

"So on four separate occasions what TPC says is "mathematically impossible"—cutting tax rates and making the tax system more progressive—actually happened. Hats off to the scholars at TPC: Their study manages to claim that what happens in real life can't happen in theory."

...

"And here's the kicker: Simpson-Bowles assumed that the top rate could be cut to 28%, loopholes could be closed, revenues as a share of GDP would rise to 20% and the deficit could be cut by close to $1.5 trillion. The difference is that the Romney plan caps tax revenues at about 18% of GDP so that taxes don't have to rise on the middle class. If Mr. Romney's numbers don't add up, then neither do those in the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that the media treat as the Holy Grail of deficit reduction."

...

"What the Obama campaign and its acolytes at the Tax Policy Center are really saying is that tax reform that reduces rates and makes all income groups better off is impossible. This is a far cry from what Democrats used to believe, going back to Jack Kennedy in 1964 and in the 1980s when prominent Democrats Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt and Don Rostenkowski helped to write the 1986 tax reform."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html

"RS, just go away. I find some of your posts in bad taste." - Ken Helwig

Unfortunately Ken, there's this thing called the first amendment. I'm assuming you're on the left which...explains everything in regards to your comment.

Record:

Edited by rps76 on 09/05/2012 19:48:28 MDT.

Brad: you're a business owner and I know how costly and burdensome and ridiculous a lot of federal and state requirements can be. From your picture you seem to be a young guy. I'm a bit older. Of course you wouldn't discriminate against blacks or gays or Hispanics or women or Asians. Sad to say, this was common practice a mere twenty years ago, and ubiquitous before that. In many places it still is. If the admittedly costly and aggravating and time consuming and constricting regulations requiring equal access and equal pay to all Americans had never been put into place, then the kind of open environment that you and your workers take for granted would never have come into existence. You use ethical principals in hiring; well, it took government to insure that your competitors in this country can't use poverty wage labor to undercut you. _This applies to all "get government off my back" diatribes: the open market is not the kindly alternative to government regulation. The history of the unregulated market is not pretty for workers. Brad, if you have a weekend--as an an owner, maybe you don't!--thank unions, thank law, thank the government. There was no overtime a hundred years ago; everyone worked seven days a week unless they were of the owner class.

As for getting rid of ridiculous and obsolete and costly regulations that only enrich the pockets of government regulators but no longer serve a general good, right on!

Doug:
The WSJ article seems a bit disingenuous; the scenario of lowered rates and a more progressive tax system will easily occur when the distribution of income becomes more unequal. I.e. given a sufficiently large slice of the income pie, even a regressive tax system can look progressive.

R S:
I see your screenshot and I raise you a series of charts with more than two timepoints:
http://www.crgraphs.com/

Jeffrey,

I'm 46 so not sure if that is young or old. My body tells me it is old. LOL.

Just curious how you know how costly and burdensome the regulations are? Are you a business owner or have you been one in the past?

I certainly wouldn't discriminate and if you profiled my employees you would see this is true. It all comes down to do you do the job or not. I make no special exception and gladly pay. My mentor taught me to determine the profit margin I need and pay the rest to the employees in salary and benefits. My mentor is a multi million and his advice has served me well. Yeah one of those bad guys many talk about.

I don't buy your argue about equal pay, discrimination, etc. Over the past 10 years I have probably been in 500 US companies with revenue greater than 100 million. This includes many of the Fortune 100 companies. I see no evidence of companies paying minorities, women, etc less than co workers. I have personally interviewed several for position in my company and I can tell you that companies are not treating them differently. I will agree that in the past it was an issue, but not any more. Prior to starting my own business I worked for others and pay was equal and based on performance.

What purpose do unions play today? With all the government agency we have today and the regulation I don't see the value in unions today.

My competitors using poverty wages? What are you talking about? If I was farmer maybe, but in todays environment we are more concerned about hiring reliable people who can do the job.

History of unregulated markets is not pretty for workers? What are you talking about? Have you looked around to see all the people that are thriving in a free market? What regulated markets are doing well? Postal service?

As a business owner thank a union, law and government? Really. What am I thanking them for? Adding more cost to my organization? Adding more paperwork?

Unions and govt regulations were important in the early to mid 1900s, but what value do they add today. For the record I'm talking about govt regulation around employment. I'm an advocate that we need more govt regulation/separate of banking and investment activities. Understand the context of my comment.


brad

No matter how you feel about the guy, you gotta hand it to President Bill Clinton. The man can flat-out work a room. That was a great speech.

That's fine that you want to get of burdensome, ineffective regulations, Brad, I agree

But look at history - the Rs deregulate and reduce taxes for big companies and super-rich. How has it worked for you? I bet you pay 40% tax when you include employer SS. Super rich pay 15%. Some big companies pay 0%. Big banks and oil companies are making record profits.

The economy actually does better when Ds have more power. Middle class people with more money to spend at your business.

Jeremy,

Thanks for the comment, but I don't quite understand (and I'd really like to!). The thrust of the article, as I understand it, is that by lowering tax rates but closing loopholes, the wealthier folks - who use loopholes to get out of paying a lot of taxes - will end up paying more than they do with higher rates but lots of loopholes.

Or is it that since the reduction is percentage-based, lower income folks will get much less of a tax break in real dollars since their rate won't go down as much?

"But look at history - the Rs deregulate and reduce taxes for big companies and super-rich. How has it worked for you? I bet you pay 40% tax when you include employer SS. Super rich pay 15%. Some big companies pay 0%. Big banks and oil companies are making record profits."

How are those super regulated companies working out? How much tax money has been pizzed off regulating and bailing out these companies after the government regulates them into financial problems. How much more cost to the consumer, that's you and me btw, has been added in the name of regulation. I'm in favor of some when it works, but it's just like the rest of the stuff the govt does, they have a real crappy track record.

Super rich pay 15% ? The dividend rate is 15%, yes? Corp tax rate is graduated 15% - 35%. Add it up and tell me how much they pay, typically. If it's an S-corp, they pay on the same scale as Brad's personal TR. WTH is super rich anyway? How many US citizens qualify? If we steal all their stuff, how many days of the US debt service would it cover?

Im guessing you've never been around banks or oil companies. God forbid a company show a profit. I love the term record profits btw. If I have two years of profit, one of them will be the record holder... anyway... Ranchers must be sticking it to the man with these high cattle prices too. My prime cuts cost me more than lobster. It's absurd. We all know ranchers have oil wells and don't need the cattle income anyway. Let them eat cake too.

I still don't get this mentality.

Jerry,

Think you need to check your facts on deregulation:

Airline- signed by Carter
Gramm-Leach (repealed Glass Act)- signed by Clinton
Telecom- signed by Clinton
Motor carrier (ie trucking)- signed by Carter
Rail act- signed by Carter

Brad

True enough Brad

You forgot the "free trade" bills that Clinton signed. That precipitated the loss of jobs like Ross Perot warned of.

In Clinton's defense, there was a strong Republican congress pushing him

Regardless - deregulation gets made for the benefit of big companies, not you

and the Rs are saying and voting for more deregulation, and the Ds are saying and voting for less

Brad: No I don't own a business but I work for one and also interact with a variety of other business owners who talk about their travails with workers comp. etc. Geeze I was trying to offer a hand here.

As for the rest of your response, I think that you missed my premise. You answer with examples taken from today. I was trying to point out that throughout history it's taken government and legal action to bring about--enforce--many of the benefits that we take for granted today. Among hundreds of examples, last night Clinton mentioned how Eisenhower sent in troops to his home state, and the city of Little Rock, to enforce school desegregation. This is "big government" and some people hated it. Now of course that level of discrimination is universally viewed as appalling and unacceptable. But people had to be forced by law not to discriminate. Again, Lake Michigan used to catch on fire from pollution. Business left on its own would never have cleaned up it's environmental messes without laws requiring that they do so. I could go on but it was my mistake to enter into this discussion in the first place, not because of you but because we all seem to enjoy hitting the ping pong ball back over the net more than moving an argument along. Which is fine, but it's my half-hour lunch break and I need to read about Backpacking issues!

Edited by book on 09/06/2012 13:26:00 MDT.