Small Business Jobs Bill

[Conan71]

I figured I'd start a new topic so this doesn't get lost in another un-related one.  I wanted to find out what the GOP's blockage of this bill was all about.  I'm puzzled because it contains items which conservatives tout as true job-builders like tax cuts, giving more small business a shot at government business, and being able to free up more credit for business people.  Democrats say it would be effective at creating jobs and would therefore help them at the polls in November so Republicans are log-jamming it to gain votes in November.

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/whats-in-the-senate-small-business-jobs-bill-for-you/

Comments from actual small business owners are interesting.  Perhaps Congress should actually listen to what the people who own businesses are saying will cause them to hire people:

"Unfortunately, none of them will impact my business, as far as I can tell.

What would made a big difference would be a more substantial change to the tax code. Right now, we get taxed on whatever profit we make, even if we re-invest the money into the business. I quite literally, pay several times more in taxes than I take home every year, because most of my profit is kept in the business to continue to grow it. There's a large dis-incentive for any small business owner to plow profits back into his/her company."

"I don't see anything in this that is really going to help the thousands of us who run small businesses, especially those of us with under 20 employees. Why not a straight, easy to understand tax holiday to drive customers into the stores? Additional lending is not really going to help us for long. Only sales will help pull us out of this mess.
If they want us to hire more people, how about a simple tax credit for each new job we create?"

Another anecdotal view:

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2010/sb20100712_080376.htm

Olympia Snow sheds some light on GOP reluctance

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22cong.html?_r=1

"The most prominent potential Republican supporter of the bill, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and the senior Republican on the small-business committee, said Wednesday that she firmly opposed the $30 billion program because it echoed the huge bailout of Wall Street, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which has become a political liability for lawmakers who supported it even though many economists say it was a success."

"It has all the quality and features of the TARP program," Ms. Snowe said in an interview outside the Senate chamber. "I think we've been down that road."

Mitch McConnell blames Democrats for repeatedly pulling the measure off the floor and not allowing GOP amendments to it:

"Mr. McConnell said Mr. Obama and the Democrats had only themselves to blame for the delay in acting on the small-business measure, because they had repeatedly pulled it off the floor and had also denied Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments. "If the president wants to criticize someone for slowing it down, he should point the finger at his own party for repeatedly taking it off the floor," Mr. McConnell said."

All I can seem to find in reading countless articles is that the GOP is upset it does not repeal the expiration of Bush tax cuts and that there are provisions in the health care bill which ostensibly hurt small business owners. Personally, I say listen to what small business owners are saying will get them hiring again and structure the bill that way.  As of now, this is circle-jerk politics at it's worst.

[nathanm]

I figured I'd start a new topic so this doesn't get lost in another un-related one.  I wanted to find out what the GOP's blockage of this bill was all about.  I'm puzzled because it contains items which conservatives tout as true job-builders like tax cuts, giving more small business a shot at government business, and being able to free up more credit for business people.  Democrats say it would be effective at creating jobs and would therefore help them at the polls in November so Republicans are log-jamming it to gain votes in November.

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/whats-in-the-senate-small-business-jobs-bill-for-you/

Comments from actual small business owners are interesting.  Perhaps Congress should actually listen to what the people who own businesses are saying will cause them to hire people:

"Unfortunately, none of them will impact my business, as far as I can tell.

What would made a big difference would be a more substantial change to the tax code. Right now, we get taxed on whatever profit we make, even if we re-invest the money into the business. I quite literally, pay several times more in taxes than I take home every year, because most of my profit is kept in the business to continue to grow it. There's a large dis-incentive for any small business owner to plow profits back into his/her company."

"I don't see anything in this that is really going to help the thousands of us who run small businesses, especially those of us with under 20 employees. Why not a straight, easy to understand tax holiday to drive customers into the stores? Additional lending is not really going to help us for long. Only sales will help pull us out of this mess.
If they want us to hire more people, how about a simple tax credit for each new job we create?"

Wow, those comments are just...amazing. I guess the first guy doesn't need a loan, buy health insurance, or buy equipment. And he needs a new accountant. (or perhaps just needs to listen to the one he's got) Retained earnings are taxed as profit, yes. If the money is spent on stuff in the year it's earned, it's not retained earnings. Perhaps he or she should actually invest in his or her business, so as not to pay so much tax.

I partially agree with the second one you posted, though. It is true that increased sales are necessary. To get that, more people need to be employed. A nice catch 22. A sales tax holiday will only help those who are already going to spend, and would have to come from the state level, causing yet more budget shortfalls there. This is why I'm strongly in favor of another stimulus.

Edited to add: Also, corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are lower than they have been since 1938. I don't think further tax cuts will actually help anything, but it's apparently what must be done to be taken seriously in Washington.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's all about "The Party of No". 

You remember them - the ones against "cap and trade" now, but who actively campaigned - John McCain and Sarah Palin - in FAVOR of it, as an official part of their platform!!  And George H. W. Bush who invented it (with John Sununu's help, of course).

But now, it's bad....

[Conan71]

Interesting.  Give them tax cuts and it turns out they are the "wrong kind" of tax cuts.  Give 'em what they want and see if the excuses disappear and jobs appear in their place.

Anyone know where the NFIB stands on this legislation?

[nathanm]

Interesting.  Give them tax cuts and it turns out they are the "wrong kind" of tax cuts.  Give 'em what they want and see if the excuses disappear and jobs appear in their place.

We've been down the path of giving big business what they want for years. It hasn't helped anything.

To be fair, though, small business hasn't gotten much lately, aside from various tax cuts we've already implemented. Honestly, I can understand why small business owners are reluctant to expand. It's a big risk for a lot of them. Not so much for my clients who tend to be diversified, so if one business fails, they've got five more to fall back on, but for the stereotypical one guy with a 10-20 employees, I can understand the fear.

For most larger businesses, I have little to no sympathy. They have the financial capacity to test the waters, so to speak, but don't. They're too busy paying off debt and consequently inviting deflation to make the debt problem worse.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We should be listening to people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle for fiscal information.  They have a special insight that the rest of us can only dream about.  Or they wouldn't be what they are - mega rich.

And they have all publicly discussed the irrational folly of the Bush business 'lack-of-approach'. 

Even Donald Trump lamented the complete lack of leadership of the Bushies.

[nathanm]

To be fair, there are also the Koch brothers, who do seem to be big fans of the tea party ideology. (makes sense, since they're the ones funding it)

Of course, they just inherited their fortune. I can sympathize. If you don't have a track record of building your own wealth, it must be very upsetting to have to give some of it to the government. If you do manage to make it all yourself, what the hell do you care? You can always make more.

The Koch that made all the money was quite an odd fellow. He was a staunch anti-Communist, but kept on building nice things for the Soviets, since it literally made him a fortune.

[guido911]

To be fair, there are also the Koch brothers, who do seem to be big fans of the tea party ideology. (makes sense, since they're the ones funding it)

Of course, they just inherited their fortune. I can sympathize. If you don't have a track record of building your own wealth, it must be very upsetting to have to give some of it to the government. If you do manage to make it all yourself, what the hell do you care? You can always make more.

The Koch that made all the money was quite an odd fellow. He was a staunch anti-Communist, but kept on building nice things for the Soviets, since it literally made him a fortune.

[we vs us]

You know, that's all I hear out of you.  Any critique of class structure is met with "classenvyclassenvyclassenvy."  Is there any approved way of criticizing the rich that won't immediately be dismissed as ZOMGCOMMUNISM? 

[guido911]

Is there any approved way of criticizing the rich that won't immediately be dismissed as ZOMGCOMMUNISM? 

Nope. Criticizing those that bear the heaviest tax burden and provide folks like you with a job and means to survive is on its face laughable. Oh, and I do not recall calling those critics communists--they are just jealous.

[nathanm]

Guido, you once again confuse pity and envy.

Note: It has zero to do with the wealth they control, I'm quite happy with what I've got, thanks. Not all of us feel the need to chase dollars as if they are required to breathe. Besides, if I feel the need to play rich, between my SO and I, we've got the frequent flier miles and hotel points to have quite a good time anywhere in the world we like. Or all around the world. Whatever.

Oh, and you fail to note that there are plenty of ultra-wealthy folks who employ a lot more people than you ever will that continually advocate for a higher tax burden for themselves. Perhaps you're the one with wealth envy?

Edited to add: There's another old saying that's applicable here: "With great power comes great responsibility."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guido said;
Nope. Criticizing those that bear the heaviest tax burden and provide folks like you with a job and means to survive is on its face laughable. Oh, and I do not recall calling those critics communists--they are just jealous.


And right there Guido shows how delusional one can be or the fact that reality just doesn't intrude.

The ones with the heaviest tax burden are right here in middle America income of between, say 60 or 70K per year and 250,000 per year at the top.  Beyond that, there is the widely known tax breaks and methods put into law by the lawyers in office anointed by those same rich people.

Keep repeating the lie and it will become truth.  Let's call it the Murdochian Mantra...

Most of us, however, in the real world, get to pay about 40% (and more!) of income to taxes.  The really rich guys said to be bearing such an insufferable burden get to pay in the neighborhood of 16% or so.  Yeah, that's pretty heavy.

And THAT is exactly what Buffet, Gates, and Bogle (Vanguard Mutual Fund, if anyone doesn't know him) are talking about.

[Conan71]

Guido said;
Nope. Criticizing those that bear the heaviest tax burden and provide folks like you with a job and means to survive is on its face laughable. Oh, and I do not recall calling those critics communists--they are just jealous.


And right there Guido shows how delusional one can be or the fact that reality just doesn't intrude.

The ones with the heaviest tax burden are right here in middle America income of between, say 60 or 70K per year and 250,000 per year at the top.  Beyond that, there is the widely known tax breaks and methods put into law by the lawyers in office anointed by those same rich people.

Keep repeating the lie and it will become truth.  Let's call it the Murdochian Mantra...

Most of us, however, in the real world, get to pay about 40% (and more!) of income to taxes.  The really rich guys said to be bearing such an insufferable burden get to pay in the neighborhood of 16% or so.  Yeah, that's pretty heavy.

And THAT is exactly what Buffet, Gates, and Bogle (Vanguard Mutual Fund, if anyone doesn't know him) are talking about.

Nut up, start your own business, and you can reduce your own tax burden through the various means that wealthy people do that you reference.  Hell, you don't even have to make $250K per year to do that.  Set yourself up as a shareholder in your business and do not pay yourself a salary, simply pay yourself dividends. 

[guido911]

Guido said;
Nope. Criticizing those that bear the heaviest tax burden and provide folks like you with a job and means to survive is on its face laughable. Oh, and I do not recall calling those critics communists--they are just jealous.


And right there Guido shows how delusional one can be or the fact that reality just doesn't intrude.

The ones with the heaviest tax burden are right here in middle America income of between, say 60 or 70K per year and 250,000 per year at the top.  Beyond that, there is the widely known tax breaks and methods put into law by the lawyers in office anointed by those same rich people.

Keep repeating the lie and it will become truth.  Let's call it the Murdochian Mantra...

Most of us, however, in the real world, get to pay about 40% (and more!) of income to taxes.  The really rich guys said to be bearing such an insufferable burden get to pay in the neighborhood of 16% or so.  Yeah, that's pretty heavy.

And THAT is exactly what Buffet, Gates, and Bogle (Vanguard Mutual Fund, if anyone doesn't know him) are talking about.

First, get over (in a hurry) your insipid and flat out stupid "Murdochian" b.s You sound like aox. Now, the only point I was making is that masking wealth envy as "criticism" of the wealthy is so transparent it is not remotely funny. Your attempt to paint that the hardworking middle class is over taxed, thus presumably the wealthy are somehow undertaxed is just stupid. I'll stand on my personal economic reality as evidence.

As for the tax burden overall, we discussed at length in another thread the FACT that 47% of Americans pay ZERO in federal income tax (that's almost half if you cannot see that). Where is the criticism over that? While I apparently am not paying my "fair share", those folks pay "no share". They also get free protection from foreign invaders, free education for their children and perhaps themselves, free healthcare, free free free. Again, where is the criticism for that societal or economic inequity? Freakin crickets.

Finally, I love reading the left talking points about how the uber rich think that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. If those folks want to pay more, let them. They do not speak for me. Oh, and just so you know, Obama's former budget director Peter Orszag says the Bush tax cuts should be extended for two years. That should really pi$$ off Buffett and Gates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[guido911]

Nut up, start your own business,...  

Conan, that will never happen. Boldness and risk taking are not in those posters' DNA. They would rather sit in the bleachers of some other person's ballpark and gripe. That's so much easier after all.