Republicans Block Small Business Tax Breaks!

If you run a company and faced with paying the IRS 4.5% more or investing that 4.5% into your business in the form of new hiring and equipment, which would you do?

Uh huh...

Straight choice, nothing illegal about it? Invest it. As a businessman, as well as responsible to shareholders, the returns from private investment are much safer than paying taxes. In the long run, in fact, I'm also of the opinion that tax revenues will also go up as a result of the real growth in the economy.

So why wouldn't business owners do that to reduce their taxable income next year instead of give it to the IRS?

Are you really trying to ask why they don't do that instead of lying about their taxes?

A confiscatory system that punishes risk instead of allowing rewards will cause people to make the choice you speak of. A system that truly encourages investment will result in greater investment and, ultimately, greater revenues to the government. Otherwise, business will be spending all their efforts on avoiding taxes and mindless regulation and not enough on the fundamentals of business.

That's like losing weight by donating blood.

Yes, you can avoid giving more money to the IRS by not earning more, but that's not a useful strategy.

Another lie.

The Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. This budget reconciliation process that limits the amount of time something can cause a budget deficit is a flat out lie.

The budget deficits caused by Bush/Republican Congress/Democrat Congress and then Obama/Democrat Congress were not in any way created by the Bush tax cuts.

They were created by a government that spends more then it takes in from tax money.

Where the hell would you come up with something as stupid as, "budget reconciliation process that put them in place limits the amount of time a piece of legislation can cause budget deficits"?

On the face of it that is laughable given how Congress operates when it comes to the budget.

We aren't talking about just the top wage earners.

Of course you conveniently forget the divended tax increase which will affect EVERYONE.

You conveniently forget the capital gains tax which will affect EVERYONE.

You conveniently forget the estate tax which will destroy lots of small businesses upon the death of the owner. (not to mention the large ones too....)

You conveniently forget the all the new taxes that are going to be hitting people and businesses. Located in the Obama Health Care bill.

You conveniently forget that Obama wants to get the Cap and Trade passed and by Obama and his administrations own admission that would be the equivalent of a 15% tax hike on every American.

A lie. On their part. The only reason they are "discussing" extending the Bush tax cuts is because they:

#1 See that their policies suck and letting the taxes up will kill them in 2012.

#2 See 2010 coming up fast and they are scared as hell.

Now the Democrats may get smart and try to extend the cuts, temporarily, but it won't be permanent since they like you think it costs the government money.

Nothing obtuse about it. The IBD has a 1000 times more credibility on this subject then you or any other leftist lap dog.

Read what you wrote: "THEY ARE LOOKING TO KEEP"

In other words they are looking for a way to let them expire and blame Republicans.

Why look?

Just do it. Keep the credit. Keep the dividend tax the same.

You don't have to look for how to pay it.

It's a shell game and you as always are falling for it.

If you'd step back from the mirror when throwing it you wouldn't get any on you.

You're getting two things mixed up here.

The 4.5% increase is in someones personal wages not company earnings.

A company will invest in hiring and new equipment.

A person will take their 4.5% and invest it in stocks, bonds, property, or any other shit they want. A person who runs a corporation is not going to take their own money and spend it on company expenses.

The crippling part is that they won't be able to invest any of that money. It goes into the government coffers and we've all seen how government handles money.

Supposedly they were some time of subsidy to small local banks for every time they made a small business loan in order to encourage them to make more small business loans. I honestly doubt the amount in question would have been enough to sway a bank one way or the other when it comes to deciding who to give SBA loans too.

The bill was supposedly a bipartisan bill written by 2 Dems and 2 Reps but McConnell went ape shit when Reid told him he they'd only approve three of the Republican amendments (the three which actually were about the bill in question) where as McConnell wanted to attach several dozen amendments virtually all (all but the three) were on totally different topics.

"A subsidy to banks to get them to make loans..."

What could possibly go wrong?!?!?!

Like I said, the subsidy in question here was so small I don't think it would have done much one way or the other. Most of this bill was about tax cuts for small businesses which McConnell killed mainly because Reid wouldn't let him lard the bill up with unrelated garbage.

For all the lip service about small businesses the GOP really doesn't care much about them because most small businesses don't donate to political action committees. Politicians mostly care about big businesses which do give them big donations while the small guys (who would have been helped by this bill) got stiffed. Remember that next time McConnell and company pretend to give a shit about small businesses.

The SBA loan guarantees do nothing to encourage loans to new small businesses... Only to established businesses that have assets and established sales records.

That's not true.

You DO need to have a sound business plan with clearly shows your research in all aspects of the business you plan to start up. Then you need to contact a bank.

If you have all your ducks in a row and the bank approves your plan, the SBA will let the bank know that your loan is guaranteed.

Just me but...anyone who starts with any frame of thought in which the statement "tax cuts cause or contribute to deficits" simply disqualifies themselves from my taking seriously anything they say about economics.

Deficits occur when governments (or anyone else) budget and spend more than reasonably projected revenues.

Period.

If you act in such a way that projected revenue growth slows, or even declines, then you adjust spending accordingly or you go into deficit.

Simply put - deficits are ALWAYS a result of too much spending.

Anything other claim is purposeful deception - either of yourself or others or both.

Deficits are the result in a difference between income and outgoings. There are two sides to the balance sheet. You've just ruled out taking anyone seriously who doesn't already agree with your ideological position. That's nice.

And you've managed to not say anything worthwhile again.

Nope. Sorry.

Basic math.

Sure, if income is UNEXPECTEDLY lower - then yes, there's another side to the ledger.

but I said reasonably PROJECTED revenue. there's an allowance for missed expectations in my post.

Otherwise, it's basic math.

I know I have $200 coming in this wekk, i spend $202 - that's a $2 deficit.

if I take Friday off and so I know next week i have only $180 coming in, and i spend $202 that's deficit spending to a larger extent, but the deficit is NOT because I took Friday off (i.e. acted in a manner projected to decrease revenue) but because I did not adjust my outlay in like manner to the drop in projected income.

All that said, I already knew I didn't take your economics seriously.

At which time, participating banks make the loan according to their standards. And very few are loaning to new startups.

True. But, that doesn't have anything to do with the SBA's decision to guarantee a loan or not.

Or anyone who's not a right-wing "taxation is theft" fanatic, evidently. This is not basic math. This is an ideological position of yours.

The most basic description of deficit spending is "an ideological position"?

Very well stated, but ultimately obtuse to the fact that there are at times human needs to be considered. For instance, over the past decade, our nation fought two wars that weren't accounted for. At the same time, the government made promises to it's citizens in the form of Medicare and other social programs. One could argue that in order to pay for the wars, social programs should have been cut, bit in mine and many more opinions... well, that's an argument worth having.

Here's the deal, Paladin... Companies are earning more. earnings reports and other data clearly shows that American corporations have significant cash reserves but aren't hiring due to an unusual uncertainty in the markets. At the same time, government is running in deficit.

I don't think it has jack shit to do with uncertainty in the markets. I think corporations are using mass media and their hysterical cries about the 'bad economy' to reduce staff. The staff that remains gladly does all the extra work because they're just happy to have a job. And, the corps just reel in the profits.

As part of a staff that remains after several years of layoffs, I can tell you I'm not "happy" to do the extra work. I'm grateful for whatever time I have remaining with a decent income to pay my bills, but work is not a place where "happy" has any relevance, as far as I'm concerned.

Is taxing me more going to make me better able to pay my bills? No. Will it make me more secure in my employment situation? No. That is the tough sell they're trying to push on the average American taxpayer.

And you don't know jack shit. First, it's not some conflated hysteria about a bad economy, it's an actual bad economy, joined with the very real prospect of exploding taxes just around the corner that is curtailing hiring and other expenditures in the corporate sector.

With a government that's acting every bit like Robin Hood, businesses are legitimately concerned about their fiscal futures. You can turn "corporations" into the boogey man if you want, but the real villain in this story ain't them.

The arguments should've been had at some point along the way (even before the past decade) and they still need to be had now. At this point, a lot of people are going to lose out, big time, on those promises.

First of all, that's untrue. When the taxcuts were passed, it's true that the government was running at a several hundred billion dollar surplus. The tax cuts were in excess of that. By definition, the tax cuts created the deficit since no other spending cuts were enacted.

With regards to the budget reconciliation process, look up The Byrd Act of 1985. This legislation limits the type of rules that pass through reconciliation... Especially tax cuts that cause deficits. To get around it and the PAYGO that was still in effect, they allowed the taxcuts to "sunset" on Jan 1, 2011.

while it is true that our economy is recovering, I object to describing what we have now as "a bad economy." The economy grew at 2.4% over the last year. In the recent past, we had an economy that shrank for more than 2 years. A lot of people will say that revisions will be made in the coming months that will show that the rate of growth is less than that, but that's just speculation. It could very well be revised higher.

Economies, for the most part is just a form of mass psychology. Sociology. Truth be told, I'd rather have the money considered for tax hikes in the economy instead of the coffers of government, but when we initiated deficit spending 10 years ago and engaged in 2 wars and enacted Medicare part D, someone, somewhere had to know that a tax hike was coming. The proposal to kick the can down the road yet again is irresponsible. There is a difference between a fiscal conservative and someone who is fiscally responsible. Letting the tax cuts expire for the top wage earners will reduce the deficit by 3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and will not have much of an adverse effect on hiring.