• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama pleads with Republicans on small business bill

Hicup said:
It's a political ploy, just like with the unemployment extension bill. They have their minions in the LSM highlight the good portions of the bill, and then dare republicans to oppose it. After the congress has stuffed the bill with garbage, and the republicans oppose, then the LSM goes into full swing mode.. :)

The fact that some here can't see that, is glaringly dangerous. Oh, republicans do it too, so they're not off the hook. It's just that republicans aren't the ones making all the laws at the moment.. The dims are!

Oh, and an important note about this bill. Anyone catch the part about "authorizing" banks to lend money to small businesses? Hmm.. Authorizing.. Hmm.. Is that like guaranteeing loans? Can anyone say fannie and freddie? How about student loans.. Yeah this has all worked out in the past.. /sarc


Tim-
Click to expand...

I assume you have to be as equally opposed to tax cuts when republicans propose them then? This really is kind of an all or nothing type deal...either tax cuts stimulate economic growth or they dont.
 
MaggieD said:
He is also advocating the depreciation change for small business. This is huge.



Why on earth are you bringing up lottery tickets???? What a ridiculous parallel. Every dollar from a person's estate is after-tax dollars. A man works all his life, pays all of us taxes, and when he dies, the government confiscates what's left. A man creates a small business that employs 25 people. It's valued at $3 million after he dies. The government confiscates 55% over $1 million and assesses taxes. The business can't afford them. The business is forced to borrow money or sell off assets to pay this legalized extortion. 25 people lose their jobs. It's stealing. A farmer works all of his life on his 30 acres of land. He dies. The government assesses estate taxes on "highest and best use" of his land. His family must sell the land to pay the taxes. It's stealing.




"Pleading with Republicans to help small business."
Click to expand...

This is why estate taxes are moronic.
You can't pass down a business that may generate a moderate income because the business itself is worth a few million.
 
VanceMack said:
I assume you have to be as equally opposed to tax cuts when republicans propose them then? This really is kind of an all or nothing type deal...either tax cuts stimulate economic growth or they dont.
Click to expand...

Huh?

If it were up to me, there would be zero direct taxation from the federal government on the individual citizen. All taxation would stem from local, and State government, and the States would be responsible for their contribution to the Fed's. It's a built-in system that mandates fairness, and accountability. This way, the States, and localities hold the power of representation, and are held strictly accountable for any, and all spending. Rather than some federal congress, and the executive deciding how much it wants to spend, it is the states, their congresses, and the Governors who collectively decide how much the fed gets to spend on defense, immigration, and any other item of importance.

You see, over 230 years, we've messed it all up. The "power" of the central authority was NEVER intended to be what it is today; an extortion machine~! Republican democracies work best at local levels, and as small as practicable. They don't work, and are bound to fail when the power of republic is taken away from the republics themselves, instead resting with a single entity. The "republic" of the United States of America, might feel republican to foreign nations, and have meaning, but in terms of application, there is no republic in the USA itself. Not if the power resides with the central authority.


Tim-
 
MaggieD said:
He is also advocating the depreciation change for small business. This is huge.
Click to expand...
and beneficial to small businesses

Why on earth are you bringing up lottery tickets???? What a ridiculous parallel. ...
Click to expand...
i think it is a very apt comparison
that person who inherited the estate will have to pay taxes on it like that person who won the lottery
neither worked for their new found money
both should have to pay for that income just like those who worked for a paycheck
Every dollar from a person's estate is after-tax dollars. ...
Click to expand...
NOPE. not to the person who inherited that income. every dollar was unearned income on which they have paid no taxes. why should money one has not earned go untaxed while those who work to receive an income have to pay taxes on their hard won money?
A man works all his life, pays all of us taxes, and when he dies, the government confiscates what's left. ...
Click to expand...
there is no confiscation. you need to become acquainted with a new term: "probate"
it is very different from confiscation. learn the difference
A man creates a small business that employs 25 people. It's valued at $3 million after he dies. The government confiscates 55% over $1 million and assesses taxes. ...
Click to expand...
NOPE. you are wrong again. which is why you need to immediately embark on a study of probate to find out the actual process
The business can't afford them. The business is forced to borrow money or sell off assets to pay this legalized extortion. 25 people lose their jobs. It's stealing. ...
Click to expand...
the business is not having to pay the estate taxes. the beneficiary is. this assumes the deceased failed to obtain good counsel and place the estate in a trust to avoid the inheritance tax which may result
why would the need of the beneficiary to pay estate taxes necessarily cause the business to close its doors eliminating the workforce of the employer? if the person who inherited those ASSETS is illiquid, then they could either obtain a loan against the assets they had realized to satisfy their tax obligation, or sell all or part of their business interest to satisfy that debt. they now own assets they did not otherwse possess, and can use those newfound assets to cover the inheritance taxes. notice that none of that caused the dissolution of the small business. a profitable small business will have some degree of equity, which equity can be realized. only someone with a limited understanding of economics would presume that a small business must be closed and sold to pay inheritance taxes
A farmer works all of his life on his 30 acres of land. He dies. The government assesses estate taxes on "highest and best use" of his land. His family must sell the land to pay the taxes. ...
Click to expand...
again, you have proven your fundamental ignorance of basic economics. again, let us assume the deceased failed to adequately shelter his farm estate in a trust to avoid inheritance taxes, causing the beneficiaries to have to find the monies to pay the taxes due. just as with the above described business, the farm can be used as collateral to realize loan monies to satisfy the estate's taxes.
since you specifically addressed the 'highest and best use' value of the farm, that has a variety of implications on the estate. some communities establish a 'farm' tax valuation, which could be pointed to as the legitimate value of the estate being passed, thereby diminishing the tax amount due. but if that is not a possibility or where the farm will not continue to be operated as a farm entity causing it to lose its eligiblity for continued 'farm' valuation, here is the consequence of it being found to possess its full 'highest and best use' valuation: it will be subject to increased taxes ... BUT only because it will carry a higher value. the beneficiary would thus realize a higher benefit upon which they would pay equitably higher taxes
It's stealing.
Click to expand...
let's examine that position. you think it is government theft to tax unearned income of the beneficiary who did nothing to realize that income, while it is accpetable for the wage earner to be subject to taxes on every dollar of income they worked to realize
i think it is actually closer to theft when the person who did nothing to realize their windfall pays no taxes which have to be made up for by the person who works for and pays taxes on their income




"Pleading with Republicans to help small business."[/QUOTE]
 
Earned, and unearned is simply a category. The money is taxed twice, any way you want to spin it. You focus on the individual, when you should focus on the money. The beneficiary is the one who benefits from the one who earned it. It's a benefit to being the beneficiary of the earner. The arguement you make is a slippery slope argument, in that, any benefit a beneficiary receives is grounds to justify any host of penalities, under any set of circumstances. In this sense, the benefit, any beneficiary receives, cancels out any meaningful dialogue on justification, and we're left with the underlying problem. Should earned income be taxed twice? I say no!

Tim-
 
justabubba said:
and beneficial to small businesses
Click to expand...

You obviously have never owned a small business. Being able to write-off in total rather than depreciate over 20 years is crucial to preserving capital.


i think it is a very apt comparison
that person who inherited the estate will have to pay taxes on it like that person who won the lottery
neither worked for their new found money
both should have to pay for that income just like those who worked for a paycheck

NOPE. not to the person who inherited that income. every dollar was unearned income on which they have paid no taxes. why should money one has not earned go untaxed while those who work to receive an income have to pay taxes on their hard won money?
Click to expand...
The money was taxed. Will we now tax birthday checks? Christmas presents? Give me a break.

there is no confiscation. you need to become acquainted with a new term: "probate"
it is very different from confiscation. learn the difference
Click to expand...

Grasshopper, I'm quite familiar with probate.

NOPE. you are wrong again. which is why you need to immediately embark on a study of probate to find out the actual process
Click to expand...

Link please?

the business is not having to pay the estate taxes. the beneficiary is. this assumes the deceased failed to obtain good counsel and place the estate in a trust to avoid the inheritance tax which may result
Click to expand...

Wrong. The estate pays the taxes before the money is distributed. That's why it's called an estate tax. Why should anyone have to "obtain good legal counsel" to protect one's assets from confiscation?

why would the need of the beneficiary to pay estate taxes necessarily cause the business to close its doors eliminating the workforce of the employer? if the person who inherited those ASSETS is illiquid, then they could either obtain a loan against the assets they had realized to satisfy their tax obligation, or sell all or part of their business interest to satisfy that debt. they now own assets they did not otherwse possess, and can use those newfound assets to cover the inheritance taxes. notice that none of that caused the dissolution of the small business. a profitable small business will have some degree of equity, which equity can be realized. only someone with a limited understanding of economics would presume that a small business must be closed and sold to pay inheritance taxes
Click to expand...

I think you'd better do your own research, Grasshopper. Again, it's a tax on the estate. The estate pays the taxes. The estate pays the tax, not the recipient.

again, you have proven your fundamental ignorance of basic economics. again, let us assume the deceased failed to adequately shelter his farm estate in a trust to avoid inheritance taxes, causing the beneficiaries to have to find the monies to pay the taxes due. just as with the above described business, the farm can be used as collateral to realize loan monies to satisfy the estate's taxes. Since you specifically addressed the 'highest and best use' value of the farm, that has a variety of implications on the estate. some communities establish a 'farm' tax valuation, which could be pointed to as the legitimate value of the estate being passed, thereby diminishing the tax amount due. but if that is not a possibility or where the farm will not continue to be operated as a farm entity causing it to lose its eligiblity for continued 'farm' valuation, here is the consequence of it being found to possess its full 'highest and best use' valuation: it will be subject to increased taxes ... BUT only because it will carry a higher value. the beneficiary would thus realize a higher benefit upon which they would pay equitably higher taxes.
Click to expand...

Does it make you feel better to claim others are ignorant? Makes no difference if it's taxed at highest-and-best or as farmland. It's all nothing but confiscation of wealth.

let's examine that position. you think it is government theft to tax unearned income of the beneficiary who did nothing to realize that income, while it is accpetable for the wage earner to be subject to taxes on every dollar of income they worked to realize
i think it is actually closer to theft when the person who did nothing to realize their windfall pays no taxes which have to be made up for by the person who works for and pays taxes on their income
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up wage earners? That simply confuses the issue. But, of course, you know that. Inheritance taxes are, at their core, merely a confiscation of wealth.
 
Hicup said:
Earned, and unearned is simply a category. The money is taxed twice, any way you want to spin it. You focus on the individual, when you should focus on the money. The beneficiary is the one who benefits from the one who earned it. It's a benefit to being the beneficiary of the earner. The arguement you make is a slippery slope argument, in that, any benefit a beneficiary receives is grounds to justify any host of penalities, under any set of circumstances. In this sense, the benefit, any beneficiary receives, cancels out any meaningful dialogue on justification, and we're left with the underlying problem. Should earned income be taxed twice? I say no!

Tim-
Click to expand...

but it is NOT earned income
and yes it deserves to be taxed
if was an unearned windfall, and that does not cause it to deserve to be expemted from tax obligations
in my opinion, income realized without incurring labor should be taxed at at least the rate as income realized from the expenditure of labor
 
justabubba said:
but it is NOT earned income
and yes it deserves to be taxed
if was an unearned windfall, and that does not cause it to deserve to be expemted from tax obligations
in my opinion, income realized without incurring labor should be taxed at at least the rate as income realized from the expenditure of labor
Click to expand...

Again, it is the ESTATE that is taxed -- not the person receiving the money. At least get it right. It's not much different than taxing money that's been SAVED while one is still alive. Hey. Maybe that'll be next.
 
justabubba said:
but it is NOT earned income
and yes it deserves to be taxed
if was an unearned windfall, and that does not cause it to deserve to be expemted from tax obligations
in my opinion, income realized without incurring labor should be taxed at at least the rate as income realized from the expenditure of labor
Click to expand...

Dude.. This is the exact definition of slippery slope.. You're coming at it from the wrong direction, and as such your argument is fallicious.

Just sayin. You're welcome to your views on the matter.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Dude.. This is the exact definition of slippery slope.. You're coming at it from the wrong direction, and as such your argument is fallicious.

Just sayin. You're welcome to your views on the matter.

Tim-
Click to expand...

well thank you very much for authorizing me to enjoy my own opinion while offering nothing of substance to refute my stated position about the equity of estate taxes
i would continue to disabuse you of your foolish notions but can only conclude you are without the capacity
 
justabubba said:
well thank you very much for authorizing me to enjoy my own opinion while offering nothing of substance to refute my stated position about the equity of estate taxes
i would continue to disabuse you of your foolish notions but can only conclude you are without the capacity
Click to expand...

An arrogant position doesn't do much for your argument.
 
MaggieD said:
An arrogant position doesn't do much for your argument.
Click to expand...

ok, yet another forumite who prefers form over substance
that is enough reason to recognize there is no value in your opinion regarding this matter
but if you choose an opportunity to offer something thought provoking, PM me so that i can celebrate with you
maybe even begin with a response to the thread topic "Obama pleads with Republicans on small business bill" rather than whining about the indifferent attitude of the posters
 
justabubba said:
ok, yet another forumite who prefers form over substance
that is enough reason to recognize there is no value in your opinion regarding this matter
but if you choose an opportunity to offer something thought provoking, PM me so that i can celebrate with you
maybe even begin with a response to the thread topic "Obama pleads with Republicans on small business bill" rather than whining about the indifferent attitude of the posters
Click to expand...

I posted my opinion on this topic. You disagreed. That's fine. But arrogance isn't debating. Insulting isn't debating. Neither is contemptuous disregard. Happens to be a pet peeve of mine. PM you? Unless PM stands for something other than Private Message, don't count on it.

Back to the thread....why is an ESTATE paying tax on money that's already been taxed?? Your argument fails.
 
You don't have sybstance. You're simply applying the same justification that the congress is applying. Call it substance if you like, but I provided a logical refutation of that reasoning. If you dismiss it, hey, not my problem.

The sum result is that the "money" is taxed twice! Period!


Tim-
 
I should point out that most big business is doing fine these days. They are by far the healthiest of economic indicators. They are also holding on to about 1 TRILLION in cash, cash that could be used to expand, hire new people ect.

It should also be noted that while Regan was a strong supporter of tax cuts, when he was facing rising deficits he also raised taxes. He had a large tax INCREASE on business in 1982, payroll tax increases in 1983, and higher energy taxes in 1984. People like to say that while these tax increases are true, you didn't see the effect of Reagan's policies really until the economy had more time to digest and spit out an outcome. Its funny that nobody wants to be patient with Obama either.

When the first President Bush was facing high deficits he also increased taxes on the rich in 1991, while Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993.
 
The Dane said:
I should point out that most big business is doing fine these days. They are by far the healthiest of economic indicators. They are also holding on to about 1 TRILLION in cash, cash that could be used to expand, hire new people ect.

It should also be noted that while Regan was a strong supporter of tax cuts, when he was facing rising deficits he also raised taxes. He had a large tax INCREASE on business in 1982, payroll tax increases in 1983, and higher energy taxes in 1984. People like to say that while these tax increases are true, you didn't see the effect of Reagan's policies really until the economy had more time to digest and spit out an outcome. Its funny that nobody wants to be patient with Obama either.

When the first President Bush was facing high deficits he also increased taxes on the rich in 1991, while Clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose businesses who are invested in making money are hanging on to their wealth?
 
I'm not going to play this game with you. State your argument and we can go from there. I'm not going to answer your first question and then get dragged into an argument of 10-20 posts. Make a point and I will argue that.
 
The Dane said:
I'm not going to play this game with you. State your argument and we can go from there. I'm not going to answer your first question and then get dragged into an argument of 10-20 posts. Make a point and I will argue that.
Click to expand...

You dont have to. You MADE the point. the money is there. Businesses are hanging on to it. they arent investing it. Theres a reason for it. We all know what that reason is. This administration and congress are implementing policies that are hurting our economic growth. Period.
 
VanceMack said:
You dont have to. You MADE the point. the money is there. Businesses are hanging on to it. they arent investing it. Theres a reason for it. We all know what that reason is.
Click to expand...

Absolutely we do.....Greed. Trickle down economics never works....it never has and it never will because of one reason.....greed.
 
disneydude said:
Absolutely we do.....Greed. Trickle down economics never works....it never has and it never will because of one reason.....greed.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that if it were truly all about greed, they'd be all about investing that money in their business so they could make more of those lovely greenbacks. They aren't investing that money for a reason, and Vance nailed it. The same reason I and most consumers are holding on to their money. There is a lot of uncertainty about Obama, the dem congress, and their policies.
 
Last edited:
NolaMan said:
This bill would pass in an instant if the Democrats allowed Republicans to offer more than three amendments to it... That is the only thing holding this bill up.
Click to expand...

what were the amendments the republicans wanted to add, and why were they rejected?
 
justabubba said:
what were the amendments the republicans wanted to add, and why were they rejected?
Click to expand...

They were not really "rejected" since Republicans would have been barred from offering them in the first place.. the NYT reports:

But Republicans leaders filibustered after engaging for days in a procedural fight with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer during floor debate, and what issues the amendments would cover. A last-ditch offer by Democrats to allow three Republican amendments was refused by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

more

The vote followed several heated exchanges on the floor, in which Republicans accused Democrats of politicizing the bill and trying to deny them the opportunity to propose changes. Democrats countered that Republicans were simply obstructing everything and some of their amendments were unrelated to the bill.

“That is the tradition in the United States Senate: majority rules but you accommodate the rights of the minority,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who is the senior Republican on the small-business committee. “We’re faced with a procedural impasse here because we’re being denied the opportunity to offer some amendments.”

more

But some of those groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business, said that while they supported the overall legislation, they also supported some amendments that Republicans were seeking to offer.

Senator George LeMieux, Republican of Florida, who helped draft the bill, said Democrats had taken a bipartisan measure and created a partisan firefight over it.

“This small business bill should pass and it should pass with relevant amendments,” Mr. LeMieux said. “Before I am a Republican, I am a Floridian and an American, and this bill is good for our country.”
Click to expand...

I don't see why amendments are being blocked really, if they were allowed the bill would sail through. In terms of specific amendments, I don't know what they are exactly.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Absolutely we do.....Greed. Trickle down economics never works....it never has and it never will because of one reason.....greed.
Click to expand...

Man...all I can say is they must set the 'bar' way low in California...wow.
 
NolaMan said:
They were not really "rejected" since Republicans would have been barred from offering them in the first place.. the NYT reports:



I don't see why amendments are being blocked really, if they were allowed the bill would sail through. In terms of specific amendments, I don't know what they are exactly.
Click to expand...
i saw where the republicans refused to support the small business measure because they were limited to three amendments
wondered what three plus amendments that the republicans insisted on which caused them to scuttle the help for small business, America's job generator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom