Comments on: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs

By: David

David — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:32:52 +0000

Ok your forty percent theory sounds great but the 95% you hear Obama saying is people who pay income taxes. Social Security is not going to be touched by his plan except to possibly give more benefits with Social Security to middle class families. So these people who don’t pay income taxes, the forty percent you hear him talking about, would still pay the same Social Security tax. If you want to read the plan go to BarackObama.com and read the official plan and not the political slander that you find on right wing websites like this.

By: charles

charles — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:47:45 +0000

Obama’s tax plan will destroy the Social Security system.

Obama says his income tax plan will lower taxes for 95% of Americans. There is just one problem with this, 40% of Americans already pay no income tax. Obama’s response to this is that these people pay Social Security tax. Well, that’s not income tax, but a contribution to their retirement plan. So if he wins and implements his tax plan, for the first time in the history of Social Security, 40% of the people who will get retirement benefits will have paid nothing for them. Social Security will then loose all pretext of being a retirement plan, and will become a national welfare program.

This will cause Social Security to lose public support in a massive way. Leave Social Security contributions out of income tax plans. If you take some peoples income taxes to pay others Social Security taxes, Social Security will be destroyed forever.

http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-tax-plan-will-destroy-social.html

By: SpoxLogic

SpoxLogic — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:25:58 +0000

If the article is correct, then why are we in the predicament we are in now? How many new innovations have come to market under the Bush admin? Investors need people to buy their inventions. If noone buys, then there is no ROI. Under the current system, it’s the middle class who is bearing the brunt of the taxes – and we are currently seeing how that is working out aren’t we.

By: SpoxLogic

SpoxLogic — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:18:41 +0000

The article misses the point that because of costs, etc – most startups can avoid paying taxes under the nature of business taxing. SO to say that higher taxes will keep people from investing is absolutely ridiculous.
What the article is implying is that under the Obama tax plan, if I had a chance to invest and after I do the math my ROI is 23% vice 27%, then I wouldn’t do the investment.
Therefore, for a $1,000,000 investment, I’d give up making $230,000 so that I can save $40,000. And for a $10 million investment, I’d give up making $2.3 million, so that I could save $400,000. I don’t know of any business person who would do that.

By: Haywood Jablome

Haywood Jablome — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:21:04 +0000

Nice article. The same logic you described that was put into action under Bush worked great for us the past 8 years. It is the reason for our prosperous economic status today. Hey, if it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.

Go Palin ’08!

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:13:03 +0000

Also take a look at this article. Read it and realize there are many more unbiased articles from the news media that say that McCain’s tax plan could all in all in crease the burden on middle class families. The statement is made in the final paragraph.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

By: David

David — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:17:50 +0000

You have got to be joking. Reagan’s cute little trickle down theory does not work no matter how much the conservatives want it to. When you cut taxes you are taking money away from the government no matter how you want to phrase it. Think about what the majority of your money is spent on outside of your mortgage payment, your car and your gas and your food. If McCain cuts taxes and say you get a 5,000 dollar tax cut most of that money will be spent on paying car payments, your gas bill and your food. Almost all of the gas you buy comes from overseas and the majority of cars being driven across America come from over seas. This leaves the only major expense you have coming for the most part from America to be food and still a large portion of that goes overseas. This means that the majority of the tax cut you receive will go straight out of America and to foreign economies. Now back to the Reagan tax cuts. When Reagan cut taxes basically what happened was the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The 80′s and early 90′s were not good times financially for America overall. One reason was because Bush I taxed the wrong people and because like I said before Reagan tried to show that if the wealthy were doing fine then the rest of the country would be doing fine as well. You are correct the financial well being under Clinton the country experienced was partly due to the internet boom, but mostly it was due to the taxing of the correct social groups to bring us out of the period of domestic violence that was around in the 80′s and early 90′s because of poor economic times. And lastly if you call what we are in now an economic boom then you must be crazy. We are about to fall into another great depression and over 6% of the American working class is unemployed. What must be done immediately is undoing the Bush tax cuts for the upper class and easing the tax burden on the majority of American consumers. This will solve the housing crisis because the Americans who face foreclosure will be able to make their mortgage payments. All of this can be done without going over 20% GDP because we are merely leveling the playing field and taxing a persons income based on an even percentage. Also taxes must be set high for businesses who send jobs overseas because then the government can receive money along with bringing jobs back to America when companies find out it is not worth sending jobs overseas. I agree with you on one more note as well. Out of control government spending must be stopped so the deficit can get smaller rather than larger. If that happens then the government can better control other things such as health care and education. Cutting taxes will help put money back in the pockets of the American people, but as soon as that money is spent on overseas goods the deficit will only get larger and we will only fall into a deeper larger economic hole. Also, to whoever called Obama an Arabian he should just shut the hell up because he has no idea what he is talking about and he is only making it more difficult to prove your point which is failing as it is. And lastly I am making assumptions, but the difference between your assumptions and my assumptions is that mine are not made based on the feelings of my family tree, but on what will bring jobs to my country and a sound economy. Please respond because I get a kick out of hearing things like the economy was sound under Ronald Reagan.

By: Marc Malone

Marc Malone — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:29:00 +0000

David, you ARE using assumptions. You assume that taxing more will help the deficit problem. It won’t for two reasons: If government gets more, they’ll simply spend more; Also, no metter how they set up the tax code, government can only get about 20% of GDP. If they raise taxes, the economy shrinks, and they still only get 20%. If they lower taxes, the economy grows, and they can get about 20%. Which way sounds better: shrinking or growing the economy?

This is proven. When Reagan cut taxes, the economy grew, and the government actually received MORE revenue. They spent more, and the national debt increased, because of military spending. But, the debt in relation to the GDP actually shrank!

When Bush I raised taxes, the economy went into recession. When Clinton raised taxes, the same thing happened. Only the peace dividend and the internet boom kept the economy strong. When Bush II lowered taxes, the economy boomed, depsite 9/11, and the government revenues increased.

So, to reduce the deficit, we have to curtail spending, and return to Reaganesque tax rates. The Internet boom was a paradigm shift, which offset Clinton’s tax hike. We need another paradigm shift. That means drilling and other energy. Produce our own energy, and quit buying it from overseas. That, in effect, inmports new jobs and increases our economy dramatically. That would be a 10-20% growth atop normal growth.

By: David

David — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:10:32 +0000

Here it is straight up without any irrational assumptions. The country’s deficit is over 10 trillion dollars, that’s 10,000,000,000,000 dollars. Don’t get me wrong having a deficit is not bad. Any American that pays a monthly mortgage has a “deficit,” but if that deficit spirals out of control, as you are seeing with the current housing crisis, it becomes impossible to live a successful, economically sound life. The 10 trillion dollar deficit is a macrocosm of this. The deficit we now have is close to approaching that level due to the Bush tax cuts. Remember Bush cut taxes for the upper class. Taxing some of them only slightly more will only put them percentage wise at the same tax rate as the middle class who will not see a tax increase, and many of them will see a tax break. With a deficit that is approaching an insurmountable level, the government needs money from somewhere. This money has to come from the people who were getting it easy under the Bush administration. Yes you are correct you are hindering entrepreneurs by taxing them once they have become successful, but the bottom line is the government needs money and McCain’s for cutting taxes for everybody will not help us to rise out of this deficit and you will only see it get larger.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:05:03 +0000

Hey Marc and AZSUE–
Guess what? I AM “rich” (at least by the definition of over $250K/year income), and an entrepreneur, and I’m for Obama. Why? Because I believe that only a Democratic administration actually knows how to get the engine of the economy running, and a rising tide floats all boats. I don’t have time to refute every false assumption made in this article or reply to the ****storm I’m likely to receive after posting this, but PLEASE don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand money or needs to read some “success books.” Yes, I know I’ll have to pay more taxes when Obama wins, and it will piss me off every April 15 (or actually on a Quarterly basis!), but at the end of the day, I will be better off and my children will be better off. Just ask Warren Buffett where he stands — or perhaps he’s TOO rich to understand either! The reason I won’t vote Republican is that — ironically considering the party’s self-image and phony rhetoric — the GOP bad for business.