Bush Says Kerry Tax Plan a Threat to Workers

[dmcowen674]

9-5-2004 Bush Says Kerry Tax Plan a Threat to Workers

Bush said on Sunday that Kerry's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans increased the burden on small-business owners who create jobs.

"His plan to raise taxes on those at the top end of the income-tax scale will raise taxes ... for the 900,000 small businesses and entrepreneurs who pay at the individual rate and who are creating most of the new jobs in our changing economy, "Raising taxes will stifle job creation", Bush said.

The Kerry campaign quickly hit back, accusing Bush of using a misleading definition of small business that would include both himself and Vice President Dick Cheney. Bush, Cheney and Kerry are all millionaires.

"If voters think that giving Dick Cheney a tax cut is the best way to create jobs, they should vote for George Bush. But if they want a plan that cuts taxes for small business that create(s) jobs or offer(s) health insurance, they should vote for John Kerry," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bush said on Sunday that Kerry's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans increased the burden on small-business owners who create jobs.

Small business owners = wealthiest Americans?

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bush said on Sunday that Kerry's plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans increased the burden on small-business owners who create jobs.

Small business owners = wealthiest Americans?

:laugh:














SHUX

 

[Spencer278]

No one is going to get laid off because of an increase in tax on the rich. If the person wasn't making the owner money then they would have already be let lose and if they are making the owner money then laying them off will reduce owners income.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
No one is going to get laid off because of an increase in tax on the rich. If the person wasn't making the owner money then they would have already be let lose and if they are making the owner money then laying them off will reduce owners income.

It's good to know that common sense is alive and well!! 🙂

 

[Ozoned]

The Expanding Democrat Tax-Hike Proposal:




In his acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
signaled his intention to make further changes to the individual tax rates in the United States: ?I
will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest
individuals who make over $200,000 a year . . . .?3 Yet, there is an inherent contradiction in his
promises: the latter part of his plan, which is the culmination of the Democrats? expanding tax
hike on upper-income taxpayers, is likely to end up hurting a significant number of the small
businesses that he purports to want to help in the first part of his plan.



In fact, of the taxpayers reporting more than $200,000 in taxable income (and so would be
subject to the Democrats? proposed tax hike), more than half ? some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.



Kerry must be a magician...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Kerry must be a magician...

We'll find out. 😀 :thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
The Expanding Democrat Tax-Hike Proposal:




In his acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
signaled his intention to make further changes to the individual tax rates in the United States: ?I
will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest
individuals who make over $200,000 a year . . . .?3 Yet, there is an inherent contradiction in his
promises: the latter part of his plan, which is the culmination of the Democrats? expanding tax
hike on upper-income taxpayers, is likely to end up hurting a significant number of the small
businesses that he purports to want to help in the first part of his plan.



In fact, of the taxpayers reporting more than $200,000 in taxable income (and so would be
subject to the Democrats? proposed tax hike), more than half ? some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.



Kerry must be a magician...

Indeed. Because there's just no way to allow tax writeoffs for money an individual puts back into their small business. It's impossible!

Edit: In case anyone's sarcasm meter is broken...I think such an idea would be very easy to put into practice (if it isn't already) and would take some of the tax burden back to the upper class without hurting small businesses.

 

[Todd33]

some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.

1.3 million small business owners pay 37% of the total federal income taxes? Unlikely. What they probably mean (and mislead in mis-stating) is that those over $200,000 pay 37%, that's quite a bit different.

You can reduce the burden on businesses (one entity) and still increase tax the personal income (a different entity) of those making $200,000 or more. It's not a hard concept, but I guess the Bushies really like to mislead people. How many small business owners make less than $200,000? Probably most unless you consider Dell a small business.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33

some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.

1.3 million small business owners pay 37% of the total federal income taxes? Unlikely. What they probably mean (and mislead in mis-stating) is that those over $200,000 pay 37%, that's quite a bit different.

You can reduce the burden on businesses (one entity) and still increase tax the personal income (a different entity) of those making $200,000 or more. It's not a hard concept, but I guess the Bushies really like to mislead people. How many small business owners make less than $200,000? Probably most unless you consider Dell a small business.

I would not be surprised if there were 1.3 small business owners making more than 200k/year.

 

[Todd33]

Paying 37% of the taxes out of 300 million people? Does Bill Gates qualify?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Todd33

some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.

1.3 million small business owners pay 37% of the total federal income taxes? Unlikely. What they probably mean (and mislead in mis-stating) is that those over $200,000 pay 37%, that's quite a bit different.

You can reduce the burden on businesses (one entity) and still increase tax the personal income (a different entity) of those making $200,000 or more. It's not a hard concept, but I guess the Bushies really like to mislead people. How many small business owners make less than $200,000? Probably most unless you consider Dell a small business.

I would not be surprised if there were 1.3 small business owners making more than 200k/year.

Hell, I'll go so far as to say I would not be surprised if there were *2* whole small businesses making more than 200k/year!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Paying 37% of the taxes out of 300 million people? Does Bill Gates qualify?

The top 5% pay about 50% of the income taxes, which i think starts around 200k. I am little doubt there are 1.3million business people in that group.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Todd33

some 1.3 million ? are
likely to be small business owners. These small business owners are already paying more
than 37 percent of all income taxes collected in this country.

1.3 million small business owners pay 37% of the total federal income taxes? Unlikely. What they probably mean (and mislead in mis-stating) is that those over $200,000 pay 37%, that's quite a bit different.

You can reduce the burden on businesses (one entity) and still increase tax the personal income (a different entity) of those making $200,000 or more. It's not a hard concept, but I guess the Bushies really like to mislead people. How many small business owners make less than $200,000? Probably most unless you consider Dell a small business.

I would not be surprised if there were 1.3 small business owners making more than 200k/year.

Hell, I'll go so far as to say I would not be surprised if there were *2* whole small businesses making more than 200k/year!

be gone troll.

 

[Todd33]

I am little doubt there are 1.3million business people in that group.

Small business owners? Read what they said, don't rewrite it. Doesn't it stand to reason that most of the top 2-3% (5% is not $200,000) are not small business owners?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

I'd suspect the top 5% is dominated by working professionals like myself, but anyone know the breakdown?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Todd33

I am little doubt there are 1.3million business people in that group.

Small business owners? Read what they said, don't rewrite it. Doesn't it stand to reason that most of the top 2-3% (5% is not $200,000) are not small business owners?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

I'd suspect the top 5% is dominated by working professionals like myself, but anyone know the breakdown?

If you have less than 500 employees, the goverment looks at you as a small business. Most folks would find it difficult to make 200k/year working for someone else.

 

[CycloWizard]

Without someone taking the time to define what a small business is, you're just arguing in circles.

 

[DealMonkey]

Bush tax cuts may have actually reduced employment according to this analysis:

Self-Depreciating Remarks
How the Bush tax cuts reduce employment.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004, at 2:05 PM PT

Last Friday's jobs report, which showed 144,000 new jobs were added to U.S. payrolls in August, deepened the mystery over lame job growth in recent years. The White House economic team loudly proclaimed victory, even though the Economic Report of the President for 2004 forecast that the number of payroll jobs would rise by at least 300,000 each month in this election year. Meanwhile, the household survey, which partisan economists have been pushing as a far better gauge of the true state of the labor market than the payroll survey, showed that the economy added a mere 21,000 jobs in August. (So much for antidisestablishmentarianism.)

Bush supporters have argued that recent job growth, pathetic as it has been, is due in part or in totality to the president's tax cuts. And it's difficult to make the counterargument that tax cuts cause job losses. But what if some portion of the recent shift in tax policies is partially to blame for the slow pace of job growth? This is a question that Maxim Group market strategist Barry Ritholtz has recently asked. And it's well worth pondering.

In May 2003, President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The measure accelerated the reduction in income tax rates previously scheduled for 2004 and 2006, and cut taxes on capital gains and dividends. But other provisions were geared toward corporations, including an accelerated depreciation schedule for property acquired between May 5, 2003, and Jan. 1, 2005.

[...]

The thinking behind the move? If more companies moved up orders and purchase decisions for trucks, machinery, and computers, that would create jobs for manufacturers and subcontractors and for the people who build, deliver, and install the goods. What's more, companies would then have to hire people to run and maintain all those new machines.

Jobs and Growth made simple, right? Yes, if this were still the 1950s, when capital purchases were largely labor-intensive goods made entirely in the United States. Today, an order for a capital good doesn't necessarily translate automatically into U.S. jobs. Instead of buying a Gulfstream G-450, a company could buy a jet from Brazil's Embraer. What's more, virtually every U.S. manufacturer outsources and buys foreign-sourced components. Almost by definition, an effort to simulate the purchase of capital goods would have nowhere near the domestic job impact today that it did in the past.

[...]

In theory, greater productivity is supposed to free up more resources for companies to invest, grow, and hire. But for the past few years, U.S. companies have proved to be remarkably shrewd about doing more with fewer?or the same number of?workers. And the temporary accelerated depreciation rule may have given companies an extra financial incentive to invest in these productivity boosters precisely at the time the administration was hoping they'd be creating new jobs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Bush tax cuts may have actually reduced employment according to this analysis:

Self-Depreciating Remarks
How the Bush tax cuts reduce employment.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004, at 2:05 PM PT

Last Friday's jobs report, which showed 144,000 new jobs were added to U.S. payrolls in August, deepened the mystery over lame job growth in recent years. The White House economic team loudly proclaimed victory, even though the Economic Report of the President for 2004 forecast that the number of payroll jobs would rise by at least 300,000 each month in this election year. Meanwhile, the household survey, which partisan economists have been pushing as a far better gauge of the true state of the labor market than the payroll survey, showed that the economy added a mere 21,000 jobs in August. (So much for antidisestablishmentarianism.)

Bush supporters have argued that recent job growth, pathetic as it has been, is due in part or in totality to the president's tax cuts. And it's difficult to make the counterargument that tax cuts cause job losses. But what if some portion of the recent shift in tax policies is partially to blame for the slow pace of job growth? This is a question that Maxim Group market strategist Barry Ritholtz has recently asked. And it's well worth pondering.

In May 2003, President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. The measure accelerated the reduction in income tax rates previously scheduled for 2004 and 2006, and cut taxes on capital gains and dividends. But other provisions were geared toward corporations, including an accelerated depreciation schedule for property acquired between May 5, 2003, and Jan. 1, 2005.

[...]

The thinking behind the move? If more companies moved up orders and purchase decisions for trucks, machinery, and computers, that would create jobs for manufacturers and subcontractors and for the people who build, deliver, and install the goods. What's more, companies would then have to hire people to run and maintain all those new machines.

Jobs and Growth made simple, right? Yes, if this were still the 1950s, when capital purchases were largely labor-intensive goods made entirely in the United States. Today, an order for a capital good doesn't necessarily translate automatically into U.S. jobs. Instead of buying a Gulfstream G-450, a company could buy a jet from Brazil's Embraer. What's more, virtually every U.S. manufacturer outsources and buys foreign-sourced components. Almost by definition, an effort to simulate the purchase of capital goods would have nowhere near the domestic job impact today that it did in the past.

[...]

In theory, greater productivity is supposed to free up more resources for companies to invest, grow, and hire. But for the past few years, U.S. companies have proved to be remarkably shrewd about doing more with fewer?or the same number of?workers. And the temporary accelerated depreciation rule may have given companies an extra financial incentive to invest in these productivity boosters precisely at the time the administration was hoping they'd be creating new jobs.

meanwhile more people are employed and the unemployment rate drops.

 

[DealMonkey]

Meanwhile jobs in growing industries pay almost $9,000 less than jobs in industries losing jobs, based on the latest data Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released last Friday. New jobs being created under Bush are 19 percent less likely to offer health insurance than the old jobs, and 12 percent of these new jobs are temporary ? twice as high as the typical rate of temporary job creation.

Nearly 1.4 million more people are working part time under Bush because they cannot find full-time jobs ? the largest increase of any president on record -- and the number of people that have given up even looking for work is at an all-time high.

This is the first president of the United States since the great Depression since Herbert Hoover who hasn't added 1 new net job during his term in office.

At least, if you listen to DNC talking points. What do they know, right Charrison? 🙂

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Meanwhile jobs in growing industries pay almost $9,000 less than jobs in industries losing jobs, based on the latest data Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released last Friday. New jobs being created under Bush are 19 percent less likely to offer health insurance than the old jobs, and 12 percent of these new jobs are temporary ? twice as high as the typical rate of temporary job creation.


false


Nearly 1.4 million more people are working part time under Bush because they cannot find full-time jobs ? the largest increase of any president on record -- and the number of people that have given up even looking for work is at an all-time high.

And these rates, just as the unemployment rate are trending down.



This is the first president of the United States since the great Depression since Herbert Hoover who hasn't added 1 new net job during his term in office.

Dishonest comparison at best. Alot has happened in the last 4 years, tech bubble, corperate scandels, 9/11. Comparing Hoovers 30% unemployment rate to the 6.5% unemployment peak of this administration is dishonest at best.


At least, if you listen to DNC talking points. What do they know, right Charrison? 🙂

Very little from what I can tell.

 

[DealMonkey]

Well it would seem that partisans can use the same data yet arrive at opposite conclusions.

Case in point, from your linked article:

Whatever the statistics may eventually show about the overall quality of current hiring, Kerry's remarks will still ring true for millions who haven't found jobs as well-paid as those they lost. The day after Kerry spoke, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released results of a "displaced worker" survey conducted every two years.

It found that during the three years ending last January, 5.3 million workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years. Of those so-called "long-term displaced workers," 20 percent were still out of work and 15 percent had left the workforce entirely at the time the survey was conducted in January. Only 65% were re-employed.

Most who found new jobs weren't making as much as they did before. Of those who had been in full-time jobs and who were also re-employed in full-time work, 57% were earning less.

What about those statistics?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Meanwhile jobs in growing industries pay almost $9,000 less than jobs in industries losing jobs, based on the latest data Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released last Friday. New jobs being created under Bush are 19 percent less likely to offer health insurance than the old jobs, and 12 percent of these new jobs are temporary ? twice as high as the typical rate of temporary job creation.

Nearly 1.4 million more people are working part time under Bush because they cannot find full-time jobs ? the largest increase of any president on record -- and the number of people that have given up even looking for work is at an all-time high.

This is the first president of the United States since the great Depression since Herbert Hoover who hasn't added 1 new net job during his term in office.

At least, if you listen to DNC talking points. What do they know, right Charrison? 🙂

I find it nothing short of blatant hypocrisy that I am crucified for one time quoting a misleading Bush ad, yet the $9,000 issue is repeatedly raised after it has been debunked for weeks. Here it is, yet again. Kerry's Dubious Economics

Kerry also said "wages are falling" when in fact they are increasing. It's true wages haven't kept up with inflation for the past several months. But even after adjusting for inflation they're still higher than when Bush took office.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What about those statistics?

The economy is cyclical - we're undergoing a transition that is shifting jobs around. It doesn't matter who is president next, the cycles will continue. Kerry himself has stated that if things continue the way they are now, 10 million new jobs will crop up over the next ten years.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The economy is cyclical - we're undergoing a transition that is shifting jobs around. It doesn't matter who is president next, the cycles will continue. Kerry himself has stated that if things continue the way they are now, 10 million new jobs will crop up over the next ten years.

It's partially true and half not. Govt could in theory forced company to create jobs in US by making it more expensive for them to outsource jobs, for example put a tax or assert certain fee on services a company offered to US clients if the services was outsourced, making their services more expensive than companies that employed local people for the services.
Of course, many factors play into job outsourcing beside cost, such as quality, quantity, etc. But the gist of govt short term brake on the outsourcing movement is what I just described.

 

[robbase29a]

Uh... cpumaster... A tax (or penalty) for outsourcing? What is this.... communism?.. Isolationism at best. Maybe a tax relief for keeping workers here would be a better idea, At least it would be more moral. Sorry... outsourcing is a fact of life. We need to deal with it. And before all of you get your panties in a bunch from what I just said, check this article out Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing This is a NON-partisan article about the subject at hand.

Bush has a plan to help americans deal with it by helping people train (or retrain if necessary) to get better jobs. The funny thing about all of this, is that former president Clinton touted the same unemployment numbers when he was running for re-election. I know that there are caveats to the overall unemployment rate, but this (what the liberals like to call) "misleading" information is blown way out of proportion.

Actually, the President of the United States has very little to do with employment in the country. In fact, unemployment is a lagging indicator and has more to do with the previous person in office than anyone else. There is one thing for sure... Kerry's proposed tax increases won't do a thing for unemployment.