Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama wont explain his plan because it costs tons of jobs...
The Treasury Department, in a study linked to by Bloomberg, reports that there are 34.8 million businesses that it describes as small businesses. Of those, only 4.3 million are employers. More than 30 million, or 88 percent of small businesses, do not hire workers. These non-employers fit the description above.
When it comes to how higher taxes on small businesses would impact jobs, it is much more instructive to look at the size of the employer-businesses that would face higher tax rates under Obama’s plan.
The Treasury study reports that 1.2 million of those 4.3 million small businesses that employ workers would face higher rates under Obama’s tax increase. Those 1.2 million businesses earn 91 percent of all the income earned by the small businesses that employ workers. Obamas tax will adversely hit those that produce the highest number of jobs...Ernst study says approx 700k jobs lost.
Obama wont explain his plan because it costs tons of jobs...
The Treasury Department, in a study linked to by Bloomberg, reports that there are 34.8 million businesses that it describes as small businesses. Of those, only 4.3 million are employers. More than 30 million, or 88 percent of small businesses, do not hire workers. These non-employers fit the description above.
When it comes to how higher taxes on small businesses would impact jobs, it is much more instructive to look at the size of the employer-businesses that would face higher tax rates under Obama’s plan.
The Treasury study reports that 1.2 million of those 4.3 million small businesses that employ workers would face higher rates under Obama’s tax increase. Those 1.2 million businesses earn 91 percent of all the income earned by the small businesses that employ workers. Obamas tax will adversely hit those that produce the highest number of jobs...Ernst study says approx 700k jobs lost.
Obama's plan as far as I can tell is to try and get the middle class healthy again through various tax and education incentives. Middle class people tend to spend their money on goods and services thus, creating cash flow in businesses thus, creating more jobs (this, in contrast to wealthy people who tend to spend their money on assets). Problem is that it will take more than a few tax incentives to really get the middle class healthy again and education incentives will take a long time before you start to see any tangible results in the workforce (though it should be done anyway just to compete with China down the line). Much of getting the middle class healthy again will lie solely in the private sector willing to pay more livable wages - something outside of Obama's control.
Don't think Romney's plan is all roses and flowers though. What is outside of Obama's control will be just as much outside of Romney's control too.
Adric, thank you for explaining but you are understanding a lot of it. Obama chose to go too far down the income ladder where there are small businesses that want to grow and to do that they will invest more money and hire more people. Slap them with huge tax increase and they are stopped in their tracks. These people are scared to death and hope they can survive Obama's class warfare.
That is why it is so offensive when a celebrity compares themselves to small businesses in that income level. They make 250k an episode not a year. Besides why would a business owner who is already struggling take on even more responsibility only to have the government to take a huge chunk of it.
Don't forget, these people have payrolls to meet, bills to pay and it is scary for them. Most business understand the how Obama is hurting the country and hurting their business that they are hoarding cash. Romney understands this and once Obama is out of office companies who want to grow will start spending that cash releasing it into the economy.
Do you understand the velocity of money?
Also remember that when the government takes money they always take a huge handling fee before it gets to you and they are lousy investors. Obama's class warfare is really hurting this country and the middle class are taking most of the beating.
Generally, my understanding is that by investing in the middle class through jobs and educational development, a middle class and domestic hiring employer friendly tax policy, infrastructural and alternative energy investment, and support for the housing market, we would be in a good position to make short and long term gains. We are seeing them already, but we had a huge hole to come out of. Nonetheless, we are now seeing daylight.
I believe we should keep the faith and keep on.
Our economy is recovering, and our yearly deficit is declining. Corporate profits are at very high levels, so cuts to the top are not necessary. We need to build from the middle. A big difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama realizes that nonmilitary public sector jobs are an important leg of the economy. Romney would trade them for tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. I would wager that millions of public workers send more money through local economies than would the extra capital liberated by Romney's schemes. These are not socialist ideas, so much as mixed economy ideas that have worked in the advanced economies for more than half a century. The laissez faire economics of Romney has been proven a failure in the 1890s, 1920s, and 2000s. They enrich a few and destabilize America, leading to major wipe outs. The speculators/fraudsters escape with golden parachutes and millions suffer. We don't need to do that experiment again. The public investment of the type Obama recommends was associated with the greatest and broadest wealth growth in the world from the 1940s to about 2000. It was not socialism, and its success speaks for itself.
The velocity of money (also called velocity of circulation) is the average frequency with which a unit of money is spent on new goods and services produced domestically in a specific period of time. Velocity has to do with the amount of economic activity associated with a given money supply.
The higher the velocity the more money changes hands, the better the economy and of course more tax revenue is generated with each exchange.
There are consequences to every action or even the perceived threat of it happening and this has caused the slowdown in the circulation of money. Through class warfare, companies are hoarding money in hopes of surviving and through fear of not knowing what is going to happen. They know that Obama's policies are hurting everyone including the middle class leading to less demand for their product. Obama has caused a drop in the velocity of money, decrease circulation of money through the economy, less demand, increased expenses.
In the end, everyone is hurt except government workers.
Generally, my understanding is that by investing in the middle class through jobs and educational development, a middle class and domestic hiring employer friendly tax policy, infrastructural and alternative energy investment, and support for the housing market, we would be in a good position to make short and long term gains. We are seeing them already, but we had a huge hole to come out of. Nonetheless, we are now seeing daylight.
I believe we should keep the faith and keep on.
Our economy is recovering, and our yearly deficit is declining. Corporate profits are at very high levels, so cuts to the top are not necessary. We need to build from the middle. A big difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama realizes that nonmilitary public sector jobs are an important leg of the economy. Romney would trade them for tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. I would wager that millions of public workers send more money through local economies than would the extra capital liberated by Romney's schemes. These are not socialist ideas, so much as mixed economy ideas that have worked in the advanced economies for more than half a century. The laissez faire economics of Romney has been proven a failure in the 1890s, 1920s, and 2000s. They enrich a few and destabilize America, leading to major wipe outs. The speculators/fraudsters escape with golden parachutes and millions suffer. We don't need to do that experiment again. The public investment of the type Obama recommends was associated with the greatest and broadest wealth growth in the world from the 1940s to about 2000. It was not socialism, and its success speaks for itself.
Corporate profits are not at very high levels but the books are slimmer meaning debt is paid down and companies are sitting on cash. Soon company profit reports will start flowing out. The feds are propping the economy with nonstop printing and just like the housing crash, subsidize leads to a bubble but it too will crash. The printing will get us past the election.
It is not what it seems and many who are in the stock market will get stung.
You believe in class warfare but as Ryan said, "Watch out middle class, it's coming right for you"
Corporate profits are not at very high levels but the books are slimmer meaning debt is paid down and companies are sitting on cash. Soon company profit reports will start flowing out. The feds are propping the economy with nonstop printing and just like the housing crash, subsidize leads to a bubble but it too will crash. The printing will get us past the election.
It is not what it seems and many who are in the stock market will get stung.
You believe in class warfare but as Ryan said, "Watch out middle class, it's coming right for you"
I don't believe in class warfare. I earn three to four times what my junior employees earn. I buy the beer, and I don't snivel about it. Being wealthier means you can give more without cutting into living expenses. When you are successful, the appropriate attitude is graciousness and generosity, not to use your money to rig the system, and to stick it to the poor. If I had my taxes raise 10%, I would NOT be in the tank. I have a bigger cushion. There is no denying that for the poorer among us, the wolf is at the door. For guys like Romney, the wolf is three states away, so the antitax whining is not very becoming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
