By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Wall Street Journal BLASTS McCain

Kasz216 said:
Aiemond said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
The Wall Street Journal (and Wall Street itself) is very pro-Republican. Its obvious to most Americans that John McCain doesn't have a grasp of the economy, he has even admited it before, but for the Wall Street Journal to call him up on it is huge.

It's more John McCain doesn't have a truley republican look on the Economy. They like Obama more because he's a free trade no tariffs on anything guy.

McCain is for free trade, Obama wants to revise NAFTA to make other countries more responsiable for labor and environmental concers.

 

Which doesn't help Americans at all. John McCain on the otherhand has actual plans to help those who lose jobs due to freetrade.

What plans does McCain have?

Obama plan helps Americans because we are less competitive to other countries that abuse their labor force. An American worker just cant compete 'price wise' with child labor in Asia. Also, American factories have trouble competing with foriegn factories that have little to no pollution restrictions. The only way to balance this out is to make other countries more responsible in how they treat their labor force and the environment (and I'm not talking about global warming).

There is no way to force anyone to actually follow any restrictions you place, since Obama and most presidents wouldn't ahve the courage to actually pull out of said agreements.

Obama's plans are all talk in this regard.

McCain's plans involve retraining and creating more jobs, in the actual places that need them. Not Obama's plans that mostly help states like Illnois already well covered with unneeded wasteful subsidaries.

 

 

Your wrong about what obama plans to do about keeping american jobs. Read

barackobama.com/plan

 

  • End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama and Biden will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.
  • Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
  • Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama and Biden will update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Also,

Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.

 

So what you like in McCain's plan, retraining, is covered here by obama. Also, He gives tax credits to small bussiness, a very good thing, and he will give TAX CREDIT to companies that keep american workers and decrease tax credit for companies that MOVE jobs oversees, making it more COST EFFECTIVE to keep the workers here. THATS what will keep jobs, making it so they make more money and thats what tax credits will do. It will make american workers much more competitive with cheap labor force. Better educated workers, more tax credit will make companies think twice about moving jobs.

 

Where's he getting all the money from this? Considering these are the same companies he's raising taxes on in the first place.

Lots of problems with it....

For example 2... well that's just easy, they'll set up a sub company or set those employees as "sub contractors" to get their ratios out to bilk the government out of the money... and also make the working conditions for those people even worse.

I mean the people in sweat shops don't actually work for Nike. They do work for Nike...

 

 

Most of the money is coming from hikes from people who make 2million+ a year. Most small business does not fall under that. It is a significant hike for those folks. They pay most of the taxes, so its the easiest way to get additional revenue.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Around the Network
senseinobaka said:
Aiemond said:
Timmah! said:
Aiemond said:
Timmah! said:
Aiemond said:

 

Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country. (This from his plan site)

 

We only have to look as far as Fannie Mae to see how well public-private entities work... Great, another way for governement to arbitrarily waste my money.

 

Do you have anything other than this to say? Incubators are a good idea and will help start off business. This is a great way to help it. And, these are totally different types of situations. Fannie Mac is very different than this.

 

Edit: Magnus, stop the personal attacks. Debate people on issues not attacks.

I understand the idea behind incubators, it's just that the government has a terrible track record on just about everything they touch, so I really don't trust the well-intentioned 'incubators' to not become corrupt. I believe the government should create an environment where businesses can succeed, but I disagree with you on how this should be done. Incubators sound like a good idea on paper, but the government has not earned my trust enough where I actually believe they will do a good job with this. Creating a favorable tax environment sounds like a better idea to me.

 

I agree tax breaks on small busniess would help too. IMO there should be a seperate catagories for personal income and small business operating costs. Then, you can have someone making a profit of say, 120k be in the 120k income bracket and the taxes on the business would be different and not knock you up to the , say, 250kish bracket. you could also target the catagories easier.

I agree that govt can slow things down, but having the private incubators now and the ones that obama supports gives new owners more choice and more opportunities to use them. When I choose a canidate I pick the packet that I think overall is better. With obama, I feel his economic package is overall better (my number one issue), his energy ideas are better (my number 3ish issue) even though he disagrees with me on abortion (prolly my 5th or 6th issue).

And i feel obama's ideas are better based on the economics classes I took, business majors I am very good friends with, and what prominant financial analysts and economists are saying, including republican ones such as Ben Stien.

Incubators are not bad ideas at all. Cooperation is a great tool, even in highly competitive enivroments. The onyl worries I would have are things like the government fixing prices on capital or certain practices becoming regulations or government seizing control. I wouldnt want a situation like the one we have with property realtors, where if you're not part of the click, then you are ostracized or worse the National Association of Realtors will seek legislation to force you to conform to their methods and pricing structures. It's heinous.

My idea is government transperancy. Meaning the government will only show up when I, the business owner, is acting in a way that tramples the liberty of another.

 

 

Well, i think they devil is in the details here. There is no way he's gonna have exactly what regulation is gonna occur yet. I doubt it is going to be oppressive regulation or any price fixing. Plus, sometimes the private sector seeks to make you conform as well, look at unions. So its not only a govt thing.  Next,  Obama is for transperacy. He believes in people being able to know what the govt is doing. Also, how revenue would you say the average small busisness has? personally, I don't think many will be paying 3k or 12k more a quarter.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Aiemond said:
senseinobaka said:
Aiemond said:
Timmah! said:
Aiemond said:
Timmah! said:
Aiemond said:

 

Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country. (This from his plan site)

 

We only have to look as far as Fannie Mae to see how well public-private entities work... Great, another way for governement to arbitrarily waste my money.

 

Do you have anything other than this to say? Incubators are a good idea and will help start off business. This is a great way to help it. And, these are totally different types of situations. Fannie Mac is very different than this.

 

Edit: Magnus, stop the personal attacks. Debate people on issues not attacks.

I understand the idea behind incubators, it's just that the government has a terrible track record on just about everything they touch, so I really don't trust the well-intentioned 'incubators' to not become corrupt. I believe the government should create an environment where businesses can succeed, but I disagree with you on how this should be done. Incubators sound like a good idea on paper, but the government has not earned my trust enough where I actually believe they will do a good job with this. Creating a favorable tax environment sounds like a better idea to me.

 

I agree tax breaks on small busniess would help too. IMO there should be a seperate catagories for personal income and small business operating costs. Then, you can have someone making a profit of say, 120k be in the 120k income bracket and the taxes on the business would be different and not knock you up to the , say, 250kish bracket. you could also target the catagories easier.

I agree that govt can slow things down, but having the private incubators now and the ones that obama supports gives new owners more choice and more opportunities to use them. When I choose a canidate I pick the packet that I think overall is better. With obama, I feel his economic package is overall better (my number one issue), his energy ideas are better (my number 3ish issue) even though he disagrees with me on abortion (prolly my 5th or 6th issue).

And i feel obama's ideas are better based on the economics classes I took, business majors I am very good friends with, and what prominant financial analysts and economists are saying, including republican ones such as Ben Stien.

Incubators are not bad ideas at all. Cooperation is a great tool, even in highly competitive enivroments. The onyl worries I would have are things like the government fixing prices on capital or certain practices becoming regulations or government seizing control. I wouldnt want a situation like the one we have with property realtors, where if you're not part of the click, then you are ostracized or worse the National Association of Realtors will seek legislation to force you to conform to their methods and pricing structures. It's heinous.

My idea is government transperancy. Meaning the government will only show up when I, the business owner, is acting in a way that tramples the liberty of another.

 

 

Well, i think they devil is in the details here. There is no way he's gonna have exactly what regulation is gonna occur yet. I doubt it is going to be oppressive regulation or any price fixing. Plus, sometimes the private sector seeks to make you conform as well, look at unions. So its not only a govt thing.  Next,  Obama is for transperacy. He believes in people being able to know what the govt is doing. Also, how revenue would you say the average small busisness has? personally, I don't think many will be paying 3k or 12k more a quarter.

If he rolls back the tax cuts then he will be increase the top two brackets from 33% - 36% and 35%-39.6%. 12k is about what a 4.6% increase on 250Kwould amount to. A small business cash intake can be approxamated in many ways. Here's a quick and dirty method. Lets say assume an electrician that employees 5 full time employees.

$60/ hour (avg rate for skilled labor in my area) * 40 hours a week = 124,800

124,800 * 5 employess = 624,000

Employee Income = 45k or 180k for all 4

*note: admittedly this number can be higher or lower significantly based on how the time is managed and if there are other profit generaters such as charging for estimates and/or consultations. Also large contract deals will affect the avg. price per hour. Like I said this is quick and dirty.

Now lets look at the tax implications.

Income: 624,000

Less Payroll: 180000

Less Payroll Taxes (SS & Medicare): 13,770

Income after Payroll: 430,230

Less Additional Operating Expense (assume a 66% operating cost):  231,840

Less Tax (assume just sales tax): 15,070

Proprietor Income: 183,320

Less Current Tax: 64,162

Less Obama's Tax Increase: 8,433

Less Payroll Taxes: 28,048

Less State Tax: 13,496 (NC - filled as head of household)

Proprietor Net: 69,181

Let's not forget that the other 4 will be taxed too:

Employee Gross: 45,000

Less Federal Income: 11,250 [ * 4 = 45,000]

Less Payroll: 3,442.5 [ * 4 = 13,770]

Less NC State (HoH): 3,022.5 [ * 4 = 12,090]

Plus Obama's Claim to give Middle Class families 1,000

Employee Net Income: 28,285

Bottom Line: 182,321 <-- The 5 people who worked the butts off live of this.

Bottom Line: 209,839 <-- Government does nothing and takes more money than the workers. Please explain to me how that's a friend of the working class?

Edit: To anyone that looks at this and still thinks that these tax increases only effect the rich, please realize that all 5 fictional employees here would be bringing home Middle Class wages and Obama's increase will make it even tougher. almost 10k lost would definetaly equal a lost job or cut wages across the board. That is no friend of the middle class

Edit: Overhauled structure to show common deduction practices and a more realistic operating cost. 



_____________________________________________________

Check out the VGC Crunch this Podcast and Blog at www.tsnetcast.com

Your not calcualting it right. Sole proprietorships or llc are not taxed based on income, but on profit. He's not going to be raised to a higher tax bracket. I did some more research on this and your tax calculations are wrong.

from
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/FE1875A0-239D-48E5-B7D2565E0CB62159/catID/3FED35C1-7BBA-4468-901354F101CBEBE2/111/182/147/ART/

"You'll be taxed on all profits of the business -- that's total income minus expenses -- regardless of how much money you actually withdraw from the business. In other words, even if you leave money in the company's bank account at the end of the year (for instance, to cover future expenses or expand the business), you must pay taxes on that money.

You can deduct your business expenses just like any other business. You are allowed to expense (deduct) much of the money you spend in pursuit of profit, including operating expenses, product and advertising costs, travel expenses, and some of the cost of business-related meals and entertainment. You can also write off certain start-up costs and the cost of business equipment and other assets you purchase for your business."

Also, (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/B407A867-3EE5-410F-8718C78B2EF698D6/111/277/235/ART/)

"How tax savvy a businessperson you are has a great effect on how much money is in your pocket at the end of the year. You probably know that the tax code allows you to deduct costs of doing business from your gross income. What you are left with is your net business profit. This is the amount that gets taxed."

Lets say that this is a llc and all 5 members have equal ownership.
First, you have to deduct business expenses. So this would be the operating expenses (buying parts, gas for travel, etc) I don't know how much this would be.

Then, you divide the profits or losses into 5 and thats how much each person gets and is taxed for.

If it is a sole proprietorship, then one guy owns it and the 5 other are employees. So, the employees salaries would be counted as an expense.

 

So, your small business owner , in fact, does not enter a new bracket and thus does not pay more from the cuts. But, he does get additional help from the "helping work pay" benifit and the increased access to incubators that Obama's plan would have.

 

Lastly, I admit i messed up on earlier posts on the small business tax code. I did a bit of research so i could get it right.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

you are correct. A business owner can do itemized deductions and bring down the taxable income. the example I gave is what a non-itemized return would look like, just to show how the different taxes would impact the business. Also, the same rules would apply anyway.

However, for your claim that the owner(s) income will not push them into a higher tax bracket to work the operating cost will have to be represent over 80% of the revenue. Which would not usually be the case.

Also, if the payroll expenses are different. There are still taxed albiet at about half the income tax rate for SS and Medicare. I calculated this worng so I'll change that.



_____________________________________________________

Check out the VGC Crunch this Podcast and Blog at www.tsnetcast.com

Around the Network

Well, the other 20% would be considered profit. It may push him over, but even so, thats money he can pocket or reinvest (if reinvested in business operations he can then deduct next year). Thats just like making say, 200k from a job.
This is what can be deducted:

"Internal Revenue Code § 162. 'Trade or business expenses.'

"(a) In general. There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including

"(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;

"(2) traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business; and

"(3) rentals or other payments required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business, of property to which the taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which he has no equity."

"
this from the tax code. This basically covers the whole cost of business.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS