American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Tiny continues to insist that a business or business owner has "no choice" but to pass on costs (or loss of profit) to workers or customers. This is pure baloney. A fictional defense in which business profit is the supreme goal. If Tiny wants to argue that there is a downside to limiting business profit, that's a different claim. Then we can debate the downside of limiting business profit somewhat to the downside of allowing profits to accumulate at the expense of workers, consumers and government revenues. But stating there is "no choice" is nonsense. There is always a choice.

The defense for sparing folks like Doppel from a tax increase has several flaws.

1. First, it isn't just small business owners with incomes over 250K. It's plenty of other people who don't run businesses. In fact most small business owners make less than 250K. So while the argument that small business owners re-invest in their business is relevant, sparing all 250K+ earners from a tax increase is not the right approach. Rather, help small businesses with policies aimed directly at small business.

2. Speaking of which, governments already provide plenty of help to small businesses. While ranting against the government, Doppel conveniently fails to mention policies that are helping his business to be successful. Some of them are perhaps even from Obama. Doppel, surely you are taking advantage of deductions like Section 179 or other policies that are adding tens of thousands of dollars to your bottom line. Do tell.

3. It is claimed a tax increase would make it harder for a small business to compete. But the federal tax hits comparable competitors too, so its a level playing field for the most part.

Plenty of excuses, but weak defenses.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416887]Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy?[/QUOTE]I sure am. I'll be glad to pay a few % more in income taxes to help our country address it's fiscal challenges.

And you? Are you willing to do anything else beyond what you are presently doing for your country? Or will you be governed by self-interest and pass the burden onto others?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416979]Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.[/QUOTE]Well stated. I don't know anyone who enjoys paying taxes. Not too long ago, people used to throw away their money into tax shelters rather than paying it to the government. But the determining factor is "do we have a responsible and capable government?" Congress has failed the test for a few decades now. And here lies the difference between Zimbawe and Singapore. In Singapore, to attract top-notch people, the salaries of the Ministries are comparable to top CEOs. Corruption is not an issue, and then you have a guy from MIT running the Ministry rather than somebody's uncle. The media likes to make fun of Singapore due to censorship issues, but Singapore is a very serious country where almost everything works.

Esten, you are wrong as usual. The Section 179 deduction has been around a long time and only accelerates depreciation of assets with limits on the amount you can deduct. This was not an Obama 'gift to small business' I wish you would get your facts straight first.

I have seen nothing that helps small business from Obama. The temporary social security reduction to individuals, really stupid considering the shape the social security system is in, does not apply to the employers matching contribution.

Perhaps we need to adopt the old Russian model, the government owns and runs everything on 5 year plans. We all know what a colossal success that was.

I'll say it again;

YES. We need to help the helpless.

NO – We don't need a federal nanny state who makes everyone helpless

Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416986]Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here. [/QUOTE]I heard that Obama was really born in Boston and that he is completely white, but wears blackface. Can anyone confirm this?

[QUOTE=Esten;416979]Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.[/quote]Lookout, a humorless left winger trying to be funny. I give you credit for trying.

[quote=]One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government.[/quote]That is entirely false. US income taxes are a labyrinth of nearly incomprehensible and often contradictory regulations that place liabilities upon certain individuals, namely one half of the country. While income and taxes are inextricably intertwined in our Byzantine cluster fuck of a tax system, they are two distinctly separate things.

There are many possible types of income some are taxable while others are tax free. Regardless of the aforementioned varieties of income, when you earn them, theoretically, they are entirely yours (excluding of course instances of adjudicative order such as wage garnishee, QDRO, alimony, etc). Also theoretically, when you earn moneys, you are likely incurring a tax liability, which you are required to pay at some point in time, depending upon the circumstances. Further, depending upon one's situation, there are many, many permissible deductions that can reduce one's tax liability. It is quite possible that in some situations, individuals earning a great deal of money pay little or no taxes.

However, there is 18% unemployment and underemployment and 50% of the public pay no taxes. We can therefore assume that 30% of the US population earns income and pays no taxes at all and perhaps receive payments and or fungible or quantifiable benefits from the government. So, I guess the fallacy you point to is just for those individuals in the top 50, who pay all the taxes.

[quote=]It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be.[/quote]Just like the decided that slavery and segregation should be legal? You are way off here. We have our mess of a tax system not because it is the aggregate wish of the citizenry but due to the long-term dereliction of our elected representatives who have been extending the reach of government in all directions and far beyond the Constitutional limits, for far too long. Then they shakedown the citizenry to pay for it.

[quote=]Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great.[/quote]What? I couldn't disagree with you more. The principals embodied in our founding documents as written by our founders laid the foundation for a great nation where the individual may pursue his self interests, while being protected by a limited government. End of story.

Our national greatness is derivative of the PEOPLE. The role that the government has played in our greatness has been getting out of the way of the individual. We have a history of greatness that includes certain presidents, military leaders and heroic soldiers, who while ostensibly in the employ of the government in no way derived their greatness from the government, other than certain statutory powers. We also have a had a myriad of great inventors, scientists, doctors, business men and investment bankers; all of which are testament to what can be achieved despite our overreaching government.



[quote=]There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them.[/quote]You are absolutely right and every last individual who votes for politicians that routinely exceed their constitutional authority or act in a way so as to burden the nation with insurmountable debt is responsible to their fellow citizens (past, present and future) for selfishly or cavalierly casting a vote for the destruction of this great nation.

[quote=]Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours.[/quote]If it wasn't yours, your name wouldn't be on the check.

[quote=]And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.[/quote]Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does.

[quote=]It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.[/QUOTE]Maybe you could enlighten us as to how your view of self-interest works out for everyone within your utopian, socialist / communist workers' paradise.

Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416986]Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here. [/QUOTE]

OK Esten, I agree. There is a choice. Business owners don't have to pass costs onto customers. They can go bankrupt instead. I made no distinction between small business and large business. Your preferred tax policies would hurt both, along with the majority of Americans. You appear to argue for higher tax rates and lots of loopholes, that run up accounting and legal expense and make the economy less efficient.

Black Shirt, The maximum marginal tax rate charged by Singapore on individuals is 20% and it's 17% on corporations. Singapore spends 2. 6% of GDP on healthcare versus 16% for the USA. Singapore is an example of what a government can do when it uses resources wisely. Putting aside Luxembourg, Switzerland and places blessed with oil and small populations, it's perhaps the most prosperous country in the world, at least in terms of GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power. It shows the fallacy of higher taxes and government spending as a path to prosperity.

[QUOTE=Esten;416981]Tiny continues to insist that a business or business owner has "no choice" but to pass on costs (or loss of profit) to workers or customers. This is pure baloney. A fictional defense in which business profit is the supreme goal. If Tiny wants to argue that there is a downside to limiting business profit, that's a different claim. Then we can debate the downside of limiting business profit somewhat to the downside of allowing profits to accumulate at the expense of workers, consumers and government revenues. But stating there is "no choice" is nonsense. There is always a choice.[/QUOTE]My dear Esten, you are once again woefully uneducated regarding the subject upon which you opined. I'll try to make this simple for you. Profitability is perhaps the most important facet of any company. Why you ask? Because the existence of a profit is perhaps the single most determinant as to whether or not the company will continue to be in business next year. Additionally, whether public or private, the value of most companies is determined by looking at their profitability. Every thing that reduces profitability also reduces the overall value of the company thereby denying the company the ability to use the funds taken as well as denying the owners realization of deserved gains. Investors make their decisions based upon the risk / reward relationship. Every time you increase the risk or reduce the risk, you drive investors away.

Moreover, profitable companies tend to reinvest most of their profits into their businesses rather than distribute to shareholders via dividend. This is important because if the board of directors and management don't believe that they can generate better returns via reinvestment they have a fiduciary responsibility to return the funds to shareholders via dividend or other similar means such as a buy-back.

There are different ways of expressing profit or profit potential such as: net income, ebitda, ebit, free cash flow, unlevered free cash flow, etc). However, in its most basic state (cash accounting basis without NOLs or other offsets) , profitability is determined by taking all of the companies revenues and subtracting all of its costs. For most small businesses, this is all the owner gets to take home. You decrease the profit and you make it necessary for him to reduce head count or go out of business. Everything that you and Obama say about business is complete and utter bullshit. With nearly 20% unemployment and underemployment, the foregoing is fairly evident to all.

Why don't we look at big Oil. Let's take their profits! Why are they so damn profitable right now? Obama and the liberals that come before them, pure and simple. Oil companies pump oil out of the earth via infrastructure they have already put in place and probably have paid for. Their local costs are often denominated in local currencies (other than the dollar) however, their cash flow is denominated in OIL. When Obama and his folks force oil companies offshore, they usually have lower costs. Further, because their products are global commodities, their profits are somewhat hedged against a weaker US dollar and inflation. If they sold a barrel of oil for $86 six months ago and another barrel today at $112, the cost of production is the same (delivery costs are somewhat higher) therefore profits grow due to the weak dollar, not due to an actual increase in the price of oil. So if you want to lessen their profits, go ask Obama to stop deflating the dollar.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416991]OK Esten, I agree. There is a choice. Business owners don't have to pass costs onto customers. They can go bankrupt instead. I made no distinction between small business and large business. Your preferred tax policies would hurt both, along with the majority of Americans. You appear to argue for higher tax rates and lots of loopholes, that run up accounting and legal expense and make the economy less efficient.[/QUOTE]So the only choice is between profits and bankruptcy?

Tiny, you seem like a gentleman attempting to make reasoned arguments based on research. That's commendable. Unfortunately, your steady stream of wild statements and conclusions is casting a shadow on your credibility.

You may have noticed that until recently, I haven't responded to anything you wrote for awhile. There's a reason for that: crazy statements and suggestions. I believe one of them was that Bush tax cuts were progressive, implying it was a good thing. While there may be some paper argument to support this in % terms (i'd have to check), it ignores that in dollar amounts those cuts had little benefit for low income earners and huge benefit for high income earners. Meanwhile those tax cuts contributed substantially to deficits, that the same party that gave us those cuts now wants to balance on the backs of those that benefited the least from them in the first place.

Today you are presenting us with another gem. That a business will go bankrupt if a cost is not passed on to customers (or workers, I presume).

Tell me:
If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt?
If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt?
Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?

The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.

Esten, The answers to your questions are no, no, and probably not.

However, I'm confused. You don't necessarily dispute that the Bush tax cuts were progressive but you're unhappy because I pointed that out? (By the way, they weren't progressive for all tax brackets, but did result in the top 1% and top 5% paying a higher share of the income tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office.) You say they had little benefit for low income earners (because low income earners paid little or no income tax to start with) and huge benefit for high income earners. So if someone who was making $1, 000, 000 a year gets a $20, 000 tax cut, then the guy making $50, 000 a year should get at least $20, 000 in tax cuts too? Apparently the desired outcome is that we all become more equal, even if that means we all become poorer.

My statement about passing costs onto customers is just math. I'm probably foolish spending the time to do this, especially since you're putting me on ignore, but here are the trailing 12 month profit margins, before income tax, of the 10 largest USA public companies by sales. I've kicked out financial companies:

Wal-Mart 5. 52%

ExxonMobil 11. 51%

Chevron 13. 22%

ConocoPhillips 6. 79%

GE 9. 84%

GM 2. 89%

Ford 5. 39%

Hewlett Packard 10. 4%

AT&T 12. 58%

McKesson 1. 81%

If you, say, raise property taxes and employment taxes enough to wipe out 1. 81% of sales of McKesson or 2. 89% of sales of GM, then the companies become unprofitable if they don't pass the additional cost onto consumers. If they continually lose money they go bankrupt.

You have a point, if you raise the income tax, companies don't necessarily go bankrupt. However, that does put more wealth and power in the hands of the government, and it does reduce the capacity of companies to grow, invest, add jobs, etc. I believe that's something you favor, and I know it's something I detest.

He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416989]Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Stan, Tiny, WW you are missing Esten's objective.

Esten does not object to seeing the majority of power and wealth concentrated in a minority of holders, his objective is for the power and wealth to be shifted from private companies and individuals to the government.

Once the government has amassed the vast majority of the wealth and power in the US then the government can redistribute it any way the government sees fit, making everyone "equal" except of course the government.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416998]Tell me:

If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt? [/quote]What is this 'planned dividend raise? ' Why not look at it in a more realistic scenario?

If there is a tax raise and the company doesn't price it into their products and pass it on to the customers, their profits will fall. Dividends normally are just a fraction of the company's profit. The portion that isn't distributed via dividend goes on the balance sheet as 'retained earnings' as part of shareholders' equity on the right side of the balance sheet. Retained earnings fuel cash flow (cash generated via operations) which provides the company with the funds necessary to continue to operate and grow the company. A CEO of any of those big companies Tiny named would need a body guard if he tampered with the dividend at all, let alone before it became absolutely necessary. Therefore, the profit would shrink, the dividend would stay the same and retained earnings would be reduced. The reduction in retained earnings effects the funds available for future growth which means they will have to borrow or issue more stock (thus diluting the ownership of existing shareholders) in order to maintain the forward trajectory that they have previously promised shareholders. In any event, that future plan has just become more expensive (interest, investment banking fees and dilutions) and therefore future profits will come at a greater cost thus reducing the profit margin that can be expected down the road. As profits narrow and future prospects are diminished, investors' view of the value of the company and thus its stock will fall as well. Investors holding the stock will sell it and those interested in owning the stock will wait until the price falls to a point where they believe it is properly valued. Therefore the effect of not passing the tax increase through to the customers lead to a loss of capital on behalf of the owners of the company and will increase future operating costs, unnecessarily. The CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company not to the politburo.

Why should owners of corporations have the value of their assets diminished and why should corporations be forced to pay higher operating costs for a political agenda of social engineering?

[quote=]If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt? [/quote]No, his compensation won't be frozen. He will be fired and collect his severance for being a dolt and not looking out for the best interests of the owners of the company. He may have trouble finding a new job if other boards of directors view his actions a some sort of bias or agenda that could harm the interests of their owners.

[quote=]Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?[/quote]That depends upon where the company is located. If it is in the real world, yes, the company needs to pass the cost on to the customers. Where you are in fantasy land, they can do whatever they want, even defy gravity if it helps bring social justice.

[quote=]The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.[/QUOTE]It is an honor I wear with pride.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 417000]He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax. [/QUOTE]I agree with you completely that Trump is a court jester. That said, every time he lays a glove on Obama, it is good for the nation. I hope he keeps the circus act going until a true conservative shows up to the party. I can't imagine any scenario in which I would vote for Trump in a primary. In fact, I can only imagine one scenario in which I would ever vote for Trump: Trump vs. Obama. Shit, I'd vote for Barney Rubble over Obama.