Geitner Unleashed

[BendBrewer]

Obama has lowered taxes while in office. Bush Tax Cuts were a mistake. Obama only want to correct the mistake made by Bush and return the tax rates to a rate in which they worked for everyone. That's all.

 

[BendBrewer]

HHere mr all powerful algore! Please take my children's future and invest it in the Internet that you invented!

Wow, you sound like a loon. Don't worry, I know for a fact that the tax on the rich will have no effect on you. Trust me. It's damn obvious. Don't even try. I'll just laugh at you.

 

[jeff f]

Wow, you sound like a loon. Don't worry, I know for a fact that the tax on the rich will have no effect on you. Trust me. It's damn obvious. Don't even try. I'll just laugh at you.

thank you so much for your condescention to the poor. very, umm, lets see, yes, liberal. thats the word. elitist fucktard.

i am sure that the state of the economy wont hurt any of the poor. yo, magic negro.....its your economy.

which makes this whole fucking catastrophe seem funny. but hey, you keep making fun of the poor people shlep.

ps watch the race hustlers come out now too.

 

[UncleBuck]

do you like turtles, jeff?

i like turtles.

 

[jeff f]

do you like turtles, jeff?

i like turtles.

love turtles. would like to find a little one for my aquarium. some sort of water turtle but not a snapper.

 

[Luger187]

how can you complain about taxes being high when theyre not? how can you claim spending is the ONLY thing we should look at? taxes are completely off the table because the koch brothers spend tens of millions in campaigns, which tell people lies about how the government is going to take over us all and tax the hell out of us. that works out GREAT for them, because the public then wants to lower the koch's taxes. meanwhile they live in like 10 mansions(no joke) worth tens of millions each. why do they get their taxes lowered over and over, but at the same time, increasing taxes is seen as a bad thing?

edit: also i think they make around 14 million dollars A DAY. they definitely need a tax cut! these taxes are hurting profit!

 

[NoDrama]

Geithner is right, the increased taxes would only effect 3% of business and he is right that revenue must go up if the deficit is to go down at all. He also makes a good point that to preserve the cuts we'd have to cut services like education below "acceptable" levels, which is also a point you should consider. I really don't see the problem with his argument... I mean, the author goes through great lengths to make it sound like Geithner wants to raise taxes at all costs - even jobs! but the reality is that the proposed tax increases would have minimal effects on job creaton. Dont believe me? Explain how the Clinton era enjoyed full employment despite higher taxes then...

Besides, there are much more effective ways (in terms of government "spending") to create jobs than tax cuts when in a demand side slump.

Umm yeah, Clinton was in office during the Peak of the Computer revolution, he wasn't in office in the beginning of the end of USA Monetary Domination.

They need to cut spending, they could cut education 100% and kids will still go to school and learn. The Feds do not need to be involved in the programming of our youth.

 

[NoDrama]

You guys do know what types of "Small Businesses" he is referring too right? S-Corporations.

Bechtel - 2009 revenue of $30.8 billion
PriceWaterHouse Coopers - US$26.6 billion
Ferrellgas - $2 BILLION annual revenue
The Carlyle Group - Revenue Undisclosed to public

All paying the lowest Fed Tax Rate.

This is raising taxes on businesses that PROFIT over 250k every year AFTER payroll and only raising the tax rate on the money made beyond that.

We gave the rich a tax cut based on a projected SURPLUS of $5.6 TRILLION by George W Bush. Yeah! Seriously.

That justification no longer exists and neither should the original tax cuts.

S Corps? No, he specifically says SMALL BUSINESS will have to be taxed at a higher rate. Corporations that make BILLIONS are not small businesses. Those big corporations will still make the same amount of money because the same tax loop holes are still in place. So unless Obama changes the laws that are already on the books, aint shit happening to those huge Corporations. I understand how a S-Corp works, If they want to specifically target those companies who make lots of money and pay little in taxes they must remove the loopholes that exist. Simply adding a tax to anyone who makes over 250k will only punish REAL small businesses who are struggling and end up destroying them. once that competition is gone Bechtel (Who will never ever be punished) can have an even bigger share of the Pie. You have any idea how well connected Bechtel is? It will never happen. the spin here is to tax small business, the opposition says "no, no, no we need these taxes so the Big companies can be made to pay." so everyone agrees that those huge profitable companies who pay no taxes (Like GE) should definitely be made to pay so the people are all pushing for the vote to be FOR the new tax structure, but in the end its all a ruse. Those big corporations actually WANT the new tax structure because it actually gives them more market share after killing competition. Once Competition is gone they will relobby for tax breaks and start raking in the money after only a 4 year temporary lull in massive profits.

 

[NoDrama]

Facts? WTF

edit: lol... Revenue in graph form!

Unemployment can explain that whole graph. The USA wants to tax workers more than their fair share to make up for the 70 million people who can't find a job.

 

[NoDrama]

That's what you have right now. Those billion dollar companies are paying the same tax rate as a mom an pop mini market that makes 20k a year. That's wrong. Plain and simple.

Yes, if your company PROFITS 500k a year, your taxes are going to go up 3.6% on the last 250k of PROFIT which translates to a 1.8% increase in overall federal taxes.



The US pays a lot more on National Security than Israel does and American Tax Payers also send Israel about 3 billion every year.

I ask you, do you mind paying taxes to be kept safe? It sure doesn't sound like it.

"Don't pass on debt to our children and don't you dare ask me to help pay it down!!!"

Sounds pretty silly when you say it out loud huh?

How are we being kept safe? I laugh at your assertion that it is the Federal Government who is making us safe LMAO its government policy that puts us in Harms way!!!! Has the TSA EVER caught a Terrorist BEFORE he could make his move? Ever? In 10 years? Ever? At a Cost of a $trillion have they ever caught one?

I am 1,056 times more likely to die in a car accident than as a result of terrorism.I am 12 times more likely to suffocate myself accidentally while sleeping in bed than be a victim of terrorism. I could go on and on with the number of everyday activities we ALL participate in that are MANY MANY MANY MANY more times more likely to happen than terrorism. I assume you will keep driving and keep sleeping even the odds that make terrorism look like the single least likely thing to ever happen in your lifetime.

 

[jeff f]

How are we being kept safe? I laugh at your assertion that it is the Federal Government who is making us safe LMAO its government policy that puts us in Harms way!!!! Has the TSA EVER caught a Terrorist BEFORE he could make his move? Ever? In 10 years? Ever? At a Cost of a $trillion have they ever caught one?

I am 1,056 times more likely to die in a car accident than as a result of terrorism.I am 12 times more likely to suffocate myself accidentally while sleeping in bed than be a victim of terrorism. I could go on and on with the number of everyday activities we ALL participate in that are MANY MANY MANY MANY more times more likely to happen than terrorism. I assume you will keep driving and keep sleeping even the odds that make terrorism look like the single least likely thing to ever happen in your lifetime.

preach on brother!

then, while pretending to fight terrorism they molest a six year old, Little miss wheat princess, white girl from iowa, and an old black lady, born and raised in alabama, who walked across the bridge in selma when it wasnt so "popular".

meanwhile, a twenty three year old yemenise exchange student, who looks hispanic and speaks no english, cant be asked if he is here legally when stopped by police crossing the border in san diego.

its fucking ludicrous.

 

[redivider]

yeah i'm pretty sure at every border crossing you are asked for ID, no matter how you look like.

it's institutionalizing a policy of racial profiling by local police forces where I choose to draw the line.

 

[Luger187]

i really like isreals way of doing it. i think its isreal IIRC. where they look u in the eye and ask questions. the people are trained to look for face and eye movements that r suspicious. id still like to have metal detectors and the xray thing that scans the bags though.

if we didnt have the metal detectors and xray, heres a hypothetical that could happen with that system. two friends are in a hotel, and pack up to go to the airport. one secretly puts a knife in the other persons bag. when they get to the airport, he doesnt look suspicious when he is asked if theres anything in his own bag. when they get on the plane, he can go in his friends bag and use it. i guess they could just ask if you put anything in another passengers bag haha

 

[beardo]

You guys do know what types of "Small Businesses" he is referring too right? S-Corporations.
.

So what if you are an S-Corp? You could be a small business owner or entrepreneur either in business alone or employing a couple people and barely making any money and they want to tax you more? What about an s-corp making less than $50,000?

 

[v4p0rz]

BAHAAHAHAHAHAH to the dude saying S Corps were billion dollar companies. hahahahah, buddy, S Corps are typically VERY small business owners. Fool.

 

[beardo]

So what if you are an S-Corp? You could be a small business owner or entrepreneur either in business alone or employing a couple people and barely making any money and they want to tax you more? What about an s-corp making less than $50,000?

BAHAAHAHAHAHAH to the dude saying S Corps were billion dollar companies. hahahahah, buddy, S Corps are typically VERY small business owners. Fool.

Yeah for sure....
Anyone got any answers about this?

 

[Luger187]

i found this http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html

S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income. S corporations are responsible for tax on certain built-in gains and passive income.

To qualify for S corporation status, the corporation must meet the following requirements:

Be a domestic corporation
Have only allowable shareholders
including individuals, certain trust, and estates and
may not include partnerships, corporations or non-resident alien shareholders
Have no more than 100 shareholders
Have one class of stock
Not be an ineligible corporation i.e. certain financial institutions, insurance companies, and domestic international sales corporations

 

[mame]

Yeah for sure....
Anyone got any answers about this?

3% of small businesses are effected by this tax. Which ones? Well, the answer to that question was largely answered by Bendbrewer:

Bechtel - 2009 revenue of $30.8 billion
PriceWaterHouse Coopers - US$26.6 billion
Ferrellgas - $2 BILLION annual revenue
The Carlyle Group - Revenue Undisclosed to public

should Bechtel, an S-corp with revenue at nearly $31 billion be taxed the same as an S-corp owner making $500,000 or less? I mean, I understand S-corp is supposed to be for small business and most of them are... But there are a few "small businesses" that aren't small at all, any of the above being good examples, that shouldn't be paying the same low rate that legitimate small businesses are paying. Again, these tax increases would effect only 3% of small businesses... So they're targetting guys like Bechtel - right? What is so wrong with this? Geithner says it well,

it's important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they've been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that's balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

“We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Also, I just want to point out how inconsistent conservatives are with their deficit hawking... You say balance the budget, so your leaders (like gov. walker) cut benefits for working class people under the guise that we all need to "fix this problem together" but everytime the rich are asked to participate, the conservatives cry foul! Why should the most well off group of Americans be excluded from the "shared pain" that is being pushed? I mean, either way I'm against Austerity as long we we're in a slump because it's only going to make things worse... But if you're going to insist on government spending cuts, which hurt the poor and the economy as a whole then what is so wrong with modest tax increases as well? They hurt growth, but so do cuts - and cuts are bound to hurt more, as we're in a demand side slump.

Unemployment can explain that whole graph. The USA wants to tax workers more than their fair share to make up for the 70 million people who can't find a job.

I think it's going to be pretty difficult for you to explain away the revenue loss after 2000 then? As you can see there was a big loss and then a bit of a bump caused by the housing bubble... So without the bubble, do you think revenue would have still trended back upwards to 1990's levels? I dont think so. It seems clear to me that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a massive loss of revenue that we desperately need.

 

[NoDrama]

In 2006, 66.3 percent of all U.S. corporations were S corporations, yet represented just 21.2 percent of total corporate receipts (IRS, SOI Bulletin (PDF),


Need to change the tax laws instead of punishing the actual small businesses in order to get more revenue.


Small firms:

• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
• Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

 

[Luger187]

3% of small businesses are effected by this tax. Which ones? Well, the answer to that question was largely answered by Bendbrewer:

should Bechtel, an S-corp with revenue at nearly $31 billion be taxed the same as an S-corp owner making $500,000 or less? I mean, I understand S-corp is supposed to be for small business and most of them are... But there are a few "small businesses" that aren't small at all, any of the above being good examples, that shouldn't be paying the same low rate that legitimate small businesses are paying. Again, these tax increases would effect only 3% of small businesses... So they're targetting guys like Bechtel - right? What is so wrong with this? Geithner says it well,

so those four companies have less than 100 shareholders? and theyre individual people, not corporate shareholders? now that i read the thing i posted again, i guess it could be a bunch of estates, each worth a lot.

Also, I just want to point out how inconsistent conservatives are with their deficit hawking... You say balance the budget, so your leaders (like gov. walker) cut benefits for working class people under the guise that we all need to "fix this problem together" but everytime the rich are asked to participate, the conservatives cry foul! Why should the most well off group of Americans be excluded from the "shared pain" that is being pushed? I mean, either way I'm against Austerity as long we we're in a slump because it's only going to make things worse... But if you're going to insist on government spending cuts, which hurt the poor and the economy as a whole then what is so wrong with modest tax increases as well? They hurt growth, but so do cuts - and cuts are bound to hurt more, as we're in a demand side slump.

I think it's going to be pretty difficult for you to explain away the revenue loss after 2000 then? As you can see there was a big loss and then a bit of a bump caused by the housing bubble... So without the bubble, do you think revenue would have still trended back upwards to 1990's levels? I dont think so. It seems clear to me that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a massive loss of revenue that we desperately need.

yeah it doesnt make any sense to me that we can just stop spending money, and it will solve all our problems. the very rich have enough money to bribe politicians, using many different ways. they alone have millions of dollars to spend on one guys campaign. so when the two people we are voting for are only there because they got a ton of campaign funds from corporations, we dont REALLY have a fair vote. we should be voting for the people us citizens like, not the one who bent over the most for the corporations. obviously, that politician will slide in favors for them, such as tax loopholes or legalizing unfair labor practices which save them money.

so to me, the only way to fix it is to get money out of the system. make it so everyone who is campaigning has the same funds, and whoever has the best message to the people will win. thats what we want, isnt it?

sorry im fucked up and got off topic lol