Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 9, 2012, 10:47 AM   #1
tshrimp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
We have voted for Higher Taxes and Layoffs.

I feel sorry for all the small business owners out there, and I will be praying for your continued success in light of what will be coming your way.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/gru...offs-you-voted
tshrimp is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 10:55 AM   #2
jeremy h
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Hmmm... Nice comments at the bottom of that piece by a poster called Ranny Lane.
jeremy h is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 10:55 AM   #3
leenak
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
My company has been laying off every year for the past 3 years. We have been told that there will most likely be layoffs next year as well. These are full time employees already with medical care. It is just what it is, companies have been looking at cutting expenses as much as they can.

I'm sure lots of companies can point the blame at Obama but if they can cut 1,000 workers or more, it means there there is something already wrong with their company. It isn't Obama causing this.
leenak is online now   10 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:03 AM   #4
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
The parties are the same. The big snow job the media perpetuates is that the different rhetoric during campaigns matters. Their practice shows differently. Too pro business and you have blind corporatism, too pro regulation and you have other problems. THey both try to tightrope walk on the center and that does not move the needle very far.

There is no easy answer for these things and neither party has enough pain to make a real change.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:05 AM   #5
jeremy h
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
We have a Conservative government that is trying to cut everything they can find to cut and as we head at full steam for a triple dip recession here there's a lot of debate that cutting demand is actually proving counter productive when trying to pay down debt.
jeremy h is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:07 AM   #6
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Hey tshrimp... do me a favor and tell the maroons in DC that are running the GOP what you just said. We DID vote for higher taxes.
mcrain is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:08 AM   #7
walangij
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: MI
I don't see how voting for Obama is a vote for economic doom like a lot of people love to say. Layoffs are not determined by the political system but by the profitability of the company. Attributing success based solely on the good decisions and merits of a company, yet attributing its failure because of the government? You can't have it both ways.
walangij is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:19 AM   #8
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp View Post
I feel sorry for all the small business owners out there, and I will be praying for your continued success in light of what will be coming your way.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/gru...offs-you-voted
skimming threw that none of them related to the president.

Health care cost have been increasing every year regardless of who is president. The "increase" people and the GOP claim for obama care. How does that compare to the already projected increases (key number they like to leave out)

CBO even pointed out the return on investment for tax cuts for the wealthy and mega rich companies is the most worthless as we get back MAYBE 50 cents on the dollar.

What I read in that list is a lot of excuse to do what they were planning on doing any how like shipping jobs to china.

This is just excuses to how they have been acting for a long time.
Rodimus Prime is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:26 AM   #9
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
CBO even pointed out the return on investment for tax cuts for the wealthy and mega rich companies is the most worthless as we get back MAYBE 50 cents on the dollar.

What I read in that list is a lot of excuse to do what they were planning on doing any how like shipping jobs to china.

This is just excuses to how they have been acting for a long time.
I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:30 AM   #10
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I'm not sure why the medical device tax was included or applied in that manner (to gross sales). Some of these cuts would most likely have happened regardless of changes in national leadership. It's difficult to separate out the noise in this regard. I mentioned in another thread that the small business equation isn't that simple. Assuming we're talking about a sole proprietor or single owner LLC, the tax would be paid based on individual tax rates. The bracket based increase in tax rates would only take place on profits above $250k after operating expenses are deducted, and only on the amount in excess of $250k. It's not that this isn't an increased cost, but it's reported on in a slightly biased manner. The exception might be medical devices. I'm still searching for further details on that part.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:33 AM   #11
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.
have to look for it. It was from NPR this morning when I was listening to the radio but really it is pretty simple logic.

The more you make the less likely you will spend each additional dollar you make. It is not like you need it. Chances are it will be put into savings.

For example I liven pretty well as a single guy (I make between 50-60k a year) and my spending habits are with in the range of my income and I still save a fair amount.

Now if you increase my pay by say $1000 a year (basically a little less than 20 a week) guess what chances are I will save most of that money because it is beyond what I need. Now lets do assume I spend the savings I might spend 70% of that extra $1000 a year and the only reason that happens is I would be building up savings for some new toy I am saving for just that much faster. So you get back 70 cents on the dollar for that extra money. Most of it would be just moved into my bank account building up savings.
Rodimus Prime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:34 AM   #12
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.
If you tax a billionaire and take money that is held passively ("safe" investments) and not used within the economy, and then spend it on things like welfare (or infrastructure) which have a very high economic rate of return (something like 1.7), the economy will grow. It must.

Quote:
The most widely cited studies include those by the Congressional Budget Office, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, and economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote. These reports find a range of values for each program. In these studies, the “bang for the buck” value—what economists call the “multiplier,” or how many dollars of economic activity is fueled by one dollar spent—for overall social protection ranges from 0.8 to 2.31. Separately, Blinder and Zandi report a value of 1.61 for unemployment insurance and 1.74 for food stamps.[2]

Research by Urban Institute economist Wayne Vroman estimates that one dollar spent on unemployment insurance fuels between 1.7 and 2.1 dollars of activity in the overall economy.[3] According to these studies, the value for a dollar of spending on infrastructure ranges from 1 to 2.5, while the value for aid to state and local governments ranges from 0.7 to 1.8.

The analyses value middle-class tax cuts, such as the Making Work Pay tax credit that gave tax credits of $400 ($800 for couples), as generating between 0.6 and 1.5 dollars of additional economic activity; the value of extending the Alternative Minimum Tax patch for high-income earners for an additional year ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 dollars of additional activity. And the analyses value the extension of the housing tax credit for first-time homebuyers, providing credits up to $8000, in the Recovery Act from 0.3 to 0.9.[4]
American Progress
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:39 AM   #13
CSpackler
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
The tax we pay or don't pay is small compared with the inflation tax. If you look around, the price of everything goes up up and up. And there's always an excuse for it. The real explanation is simply currency devaluation as Fed prints dollars by the billions with the stroke of a pen. Wealth gets transferred from the middle class to the rich, and it's been happening at an accelerated pace since about 2008.
CSpackler is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:40 AM   #14
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Hey tshrimp... do me a favor and tell the maroons in DC that are running the GOP what you just said. We DID vote for higher taxes.
Some people's myopic view is that lower taxes will fix everything, except you'll have a non-functional govt, falling down infrastructure, no military, and no social safety nets (screw'm). Instead of demanding efficient, effective government, they think it's better to do away with it...this is advancement of our society? (Btw, I support large military cuts).
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:46 AM   #15
CSpackler
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
If you tax a billionaire and take money that is held passively ("safe" investments) and not used within the economy, and then spend it on things like welfare (or infrastructure) which have a very high economic rate of return (something like 1.7), the economy will grow. It must.
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
Some people's myopic view is that lower taxes will fix everything, except you'll have a non-functional govt, falling down infrastructure, no military, and no social safety nets (screw'm). Instead of demanding efficient, effective government, they think it's better to do away with it...this is advancement of our society? (Btw, I support large military cuts).
I personally think human advancement is us moving away from corrupt, State controlled power structures.
CSpackler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:47 AM   #16
Rt&Dzine
macrumors 6502a
 
Rt&Dzine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 12 across
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSpackler View Post
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.
Wasn't Romney already doing that?
Rt&Dzine is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 11:50 AM   #17
walangij
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSpackler View Post
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.
This is based on the Laffer Curve, which in a nutshell suggests that when taxes reach a certain point, money begins to leave the economy. Reverting back to the marginal tax rates before the Bush tax cuts won't trigger this result.
walangij is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 12:02 PM   #18
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSpackler View Post
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.....
our tax system has been rigged to reward them for doing just that.....it's exactly what the billionaires want
Macky-Mac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 12:03 PM   #19
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSpackler View Post
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.[COLOR="#808080"]
but they already are doing that so that is no real effect.
Rodimus Prime is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 01:12 PM   #20
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.
I believe he was referring to the CRS (the researchers for congress) report that basically completely debunks the GOP economic platform for the past 40 years: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/P...andeconomy.pdf

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSpackler View Post
The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.[COLOR="#808080"]

----------
Billionaires are world citizens already, they don't have the ties to countries that happened with the plutocrats of the 20's. There is no reason other than economics to keep money in country X or Y.

When they have no skin in the game for a given country, why do we put our faith and lively hood in these "job creators" that have effective control over labor forces anyway?

Why hand the keys to the game masters?
NT1440 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 01:28 PM   #21
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
conservative David Frum commenting on a significant problem that conservatives and republicans have;

Quote:
Conservative columnist David Frum: "Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex."
Frum on Morning Joe
Macky-Mac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 01:33 PM   #22
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
I believe he was referring to the CRS (the researchers for congress) report that basically completely debunks the GOP economic platform for the past 40 years: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/P...andeconomy.pdf
FWIW I heard the same NPR story this morning and I believe they are referring to this CBO report: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...Tightening.pdf though I have not read it fully yet.

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 01:41 PM   #23
bradl
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
conservative David Frum commenting on a significant problem that conservatives and republicans have;



Frum on Morning Joe
This guy is absolutely spot on, and that is saying a lot when he comes from being a GWB speech writer.

And when you look at it, and look back at it, the numbers would make sense, especially in the viewership numbers at Fox compared to all of the other channels, conservative talk radio versus progressive radio and NPR.

Now that something like this has been said by someone prominent, how many denial rebuttals will be said now? there will be infinitely many because if they did say the truth, they'd lose those viewers plus the advertising dollars they would be getting, and t heir salaries gone.

This... is capitalism at its best, and Joe said it: he's a capitalist and can understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't take away the fact that their lies are costing people their livelihoods just so they can keep theirs own.

I wonder what's next: "let them eat cake"?

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 01:41 PM   #24
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
have to look for it. It was from NPR this morning when I was listening to the radio but really it is pretty simple logic.

The more you make the less likely you will spend each additional dollar you make. It is not like you need it. Chances are it will be put into savings.

For example I liven pretty well as a single guy (I make between 50-60k a year) and my spending habits are with in the range of my income and I still save a fair amount.

Now if you increase my pay by say $1000 a year (basically a little less than 20 a week) guess what chances are I will save most of that money because it is beyond what I need. Now lets do assume I spend the savings I might spend 70% of that extra $1000 a year and the only reason that happens is I would be building up savings for some new toy I am saving for just that much faster. So you get back 70 cents on the dollar for that extra money. Most of it would be just moved into my bank account building up savings.
This analysis ignores one vital point. The savings that the rich don't get taxed on and don't spend is not sitting in a mattress. The rich want to earn a return on that money. What do they with it? They invest it in corporate bonds (which helps companies invest and grow), government bonds (which helps pay for government services), or in stocks (companies again) or real estate (infrastructure).

The goal though is to encourage the rich to invest is wisely in things that help society and not on just gambling. Every company ever invented started out as a startup that got financing from rich people. They put the money in so that an Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. can get the money they need to pay their employees, invest in infrastructure, etc. before they are profitable.

The problem is that the rich are scared for many reasons so they tend to invest it in passive income like bonds instead of investments that stimulate growth.

The trick is for government policy to encourage this. The stalemate that exists in politics and the mess that is the tax code and the deficits is what are keeping this cash on the sidelines.

I would much rather have this extra money invested in the US as opposed to given through transfer payments to consumers so they can buy more goods made in China.
Dmunjal is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 02:18 PM   #25
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
The problem is that the rich are scared for many reasons so they tend to invest it in passive income like bonds instead of investments that stimulate growth.

The trick is for government policy to encourage this. The stalemate that exists in politics and the mess that is the tax code and the deficits is what are keeping this cash on the sidelines.
No. No. No. The problem isn't that the rich are scared, but that "safe" investments minus taxes yield plenty of income. What we need are government policies that encourage riskier, US investments in high-growth areas. The second a billionaire sees no need to grow his/her income, is the second every penny of that person's investments shifts to non-growth investments. That is bad for the economy.

Taxes are a small, small factor in the investment strategy, but an important factor. They can shift an otherwise cautious portfolio to one that is more growth oriented.

Higher taxes yield job growth, economic activity and overall economic improvement for many reasons, none of which are simple.
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNBC survey shows millionaires want higher taxes to fix inequality Michael Goff Politics, Religion, Social Issues 74 May 19, 2014 08:23 AM
Higher DPI Means Higher Resolution (Really?) leerkeller Digital Photography 4 Jun 13, 2013 08:37 AM
No Alternative Minimum Tax patch could mean higher taxes for most ugahairydawgs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 37 Dec 29, 2012 09:28 AM
Apple Retail Stores Seeing Significant Layoffs of Recent Hires? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 410 Aug 26, 2012 03:15 PM
What's the highest up-voted post that you have seen? macbook pro i5 Wasteland 18 Jun 24, 2012 12:03 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC