Liberal Left is mad as hell at Obama for supporting Bush tax cuts

[BT]

THe tax in question is an Income tax right?

So it isn't a tax on people who have property it is a tax on people who make the property productive, not a tax on people who have money but a tax on people who earn or create the money.

It is a proposed increase in tax upon those who earn above a certain amount.

[Xavier_Onassis]

LeBron James and Dwayne Wade are NBA basketball players for the Miami Heat. I was referring to the proposal by Obama that the Bush tax cut would be removed for everyone except those making above $200K ($250K if married). The amount of the tax that would NOT be cut was 4.6%

I have no knowledge that either of these men is starting any business whatever. Both of them just bought multimillion dollar mansions, so I doubt it.

We have been hearing for two years that if the Bush tax cut was nor rescinded on people of this income level, these people would not create jobs that the economy needs. I was suggesting that there are a lot of people in this tax bracket that would not create jobs even if they were given the tax cut.

I find it difficult that anyone did not understand this.

[R.R.]

I have no knowledge that either of these men is starting any business whatever.

If you don't even know, how can we have a discussion about it? Do some more homework.
 

Both of them just bought multimillion dollar mansions, so I doubt it.

They probably have a few mansions. And a few apartments for their bitches. They have hired no gardeners, butlers, interior decorators, handymen, contractors, plumbers for their new homes? What about drivers or bodyguards? What makes you think they have created no jobs? Because they are black?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Anyone that lived in those mansions would also pay to maintain them, even if they belonged to the bank. It is not a question of the NBA star buying the mansion and the mansion just sitting there rotting away: it is

By "create jobs", I mean permanent jobs, not two or three days of hanging new drapes.

 I don't think they are OBLIGED to start a company and hire anyone, but all we have heard is that that tiny 4.6% of the megawealthy person's income is the difference between them starting or expanding a company and not doing it,and this is patently false.

After all, if you start a company and hire people, it is all deductible from your bottom line as a business expense, and no taxes will be due on that amount.

There is nothing in the paper about either of these two guys starting a business, which would mean that they are not. I am not about to waste my time researching crap for your amusement and rebuttal.

The point is that the argument that tax breaks result in more jobs is simply bogus.

[Amianthus]

There is nothing in the paper about either of these two guys starting a business, which would mean that they are not.

Closer attention to reading is required.

LeBron James has at least one company:
"Mike Flynt, the 59-year-old grandfather who just finished his long-delayed senior season of college football, is the newest client of LeBron James' athlete management company."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3164390

Dwayne Wade has decided to expand his company:
"Dwayne Wade Company recently signed a lease for a new office building, for a lease period of 10 years."
http://www.brainmass.com/homework-help/business/accounting-business-analysis-financial-reporting/133097

[Xavier_Onassis]

And so, that sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

No 4.6% tax break was required to get these men to invest in a business.

[BT]

They already have the tax break. what they don't have to deal with for a year or so is a tax increase.

[Amianthus]

And so, that sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

No 4.6% tax break was required to get these men to invest in a business.

Hardly. They currently have the tax break. The Democrats would like to remove it, thereby increasing their taxes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, we were told that they would not invest money UNLESS they got the tax break again.

First, all business expenses are deductible, and therefore reduce the amount of income.And that, in turn, reduces the amount on which the 4.6% would be paid.

Second, the fact that they invested the money before knowing they would get a tax break means that the tax break was an unnecessary incentive. 4.6% is not that much when one is making as much as these guys make for playing with balls.

[sirs]

This is an interesting..........conclusion.  "The rich" don't need the tax break because its supposedly a bogus arguement to make, that they create jobs.  But if they do create jobs, then....you see?, they didn't need a tax cut

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is bloody obvious that these two needed no incentive.

So why give them one?

[BT]

t is bloody obvious that these two needed no incentive.

So why give them one?

Why give the poor a break?
or the middle class a break?

[Plane]

No, we were told that they would not invest money UNLESS they got the tax break again.

First, all business expenses are deductible, and therefore reduce the amount of income.And that, in turn, reduces the amount on which the 4.6% would be paid.

Second, the fact that they invested the money before knowing they would get a tax break means that the tax break was an unnecessary incentive. 4.6% is not that much when one is making as much as these guys make for playing with balls.

What would 4.6% more jobs mean to the country?

Expand the concept, what would be the result of removeing all the power to hire from the wealthy instead of just part of it?

If the taxes were halved , would the hiring be improved by say 15%?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If lower taxes had this huge power to create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created far more than they did.

If there are no taxes, there is no government and anarchy results. What you get is Somalia.

If taxes were 100%, no one would have any incentive to participate in the economy. People would grow their own food and barter with others for other needs. The economy would not involve money. Perhaps this would resemble what existed after Genghis Khan and Company took over, and his soldiers could plunder at will.


There is an ideal tax rate at which revenue and job creating are at an optimal level. If taxes are lowered beyond that point, revenue drops more than is justified.

Reducing taxes will not always raise revenue received.

[sirs]

If lower taxes had this huge power to create jobs, then the Bush tax cuts should have created far more than they did.

Perhaps someone should remind Xo the unemployment rates, 2yrs after the tax cuts were in place.  At least he seems to be conceding that the tax cuts did create more jobs, just not as many as they "should have" apparently.  And what # "should have" been created? 

Perhaps also a reminder of the increased revenues brought on into the reserves 2yrs following the Bush tax cuts, or even the Reagan tax cuts.  More jobs, more fed revenues....oh the horror

If there are no taxes, there is no government and anarchy results. What you get is Somalia.

And what you have is no one advocating "no taxes".  That would be referred to as a bogus arguement