Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[fskimospy]

Can you just imagine what the Liberals whold be saying if Romney or another Republican came out and say "You didn't build that job, it was given to you by a Corporation"

They say that pretty often, that's the whole 'job creators' explanation about lowering tax rates on the rich. If we give rich people more money they will give us jobs.

 

[Thump553]

OP's position makes absolutely no sense. Personal property taxes have absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the federal government or federal policy. In my state they are taxes paid to the town.


If you think your business could exist in a vaccuum without the roads, national security defense, etc. built with government money, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

BTW, any state with any decent taxing structure (like CT) exempts such major capital assets as manufacturing equipment from personal property tax.


<---- Businessowner who has always paid his personal property taxes for years now, without soliciting handouts and regardless of which political party is in charge of the state, local or federal government.

 

[highland145]

OP's position makes absolutely no sense. Personal property taxes have absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the federal government or federal policy. In my state they are taxes paid to the town.


If you think your business could exist in a vaccuum without the roads, national security defense, etc. built with government money, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

BTW, any state with any decent taxing structure (like CT) exempts such major capital assets as manufacturing equipment from personal property tax.


<---- Businessowner who has always paid his personal property taxes for years now, without soliciting handouts and regardless of which political party is in charge of the state, local or federal government.

That came from.......


2nd, your last statement.

 

[waggy]

his remarks were idiotic and not very well thought out and while i do think its something he really believes does have a grain of truth to it.

workers, costumers, government etc does help a business grow. it does not make it a success or even start it. The business owner is the one that starts it and takes a very very huge risk. The owner is the one that gets the costumers in, he is the one that hires the workers.

 

[fskimospy]

That came from.......

Other people's collective contributions. Also known as 'government'.

 

[highland145]

workers, costumers, government etc does help a business grow. it does not make it a success or even start it. The business owner is the one that starts it and takes a very very huge risk. The owner is the one that gets the costumers in, he is the one that hires the workers.

This. Risked 20 years of savings/investments. Failure would have left me on the street.


costumers,

 

[highland145]

Other people's collective contributions. Also known as 'government'.

Taxes from earnings. The government doesn't earn anything. Well, some interest from TARP $$ the financial institutions paid back.

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes from earnings. The government doesn't earn anything. Well, some interest from TARP $$ the financial institutions paid back.

What's your point?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm pretty sure that most people consider 'building a business' to mean starting a new one, but I guess I can't say what you might think that means. So to each their own on that one.

Wait a second here...when Obama used the words "build it", was he talking about building a business or building this nation's infrastructure? Please try to keep your story straight.

Obama does nothing to minimize the role of business in building this nation, he was just emphasizing the role of government programs in this speech. I think this is a case of you hearing what you want to hear, but it's not like you were ever going to vote for Obama anyway.

I think this is a case of you hearing what you want to hear, but it's not like you were ever going to not vote for Obama anyway.

Interesting how you seem to believe that if you agree with something a source says you must always agree with everything it says and declare it to be unimpeachable. Go figure. Lol. (I also might note your acceptance of Factcheck's article on Bain but your attack on it here. Go figure some more )

I personally don't think it's wise to significantly increase taxes when our economy is so fragile. I also believe tax increases will adversely impact jobs. Are there not more than a few economists which share these opinions as well?

I believe in the Bain Capital case fact check missed the boat. There are plenty of cases where fact check has called out Obama for saying something wrong in which I totally agree with them. This is a case in which I do not.

I believe there were several fact check organizations (including PolitiFact) who also supported Romney's claims regarding Bain. I'm imagine you think they all missed the boat as well. Doesn't surprise me I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait a second here...when Obama used the words "build it", was he talking about building a business or building this nation's infrastructure? Please try to keep your story straight.

I thought that's what you took it to mean, but if you have come around to my thinking that's great, friend DSF!

I think this is a case of you hearing what you want to hear, but it's not like you were ever going to not vote for Obama anyway.

Over Romney? Are you kidding? I mean think just how stupid someone would have to be in order to vote for Romney.

I personally don't think it's wise to significantly increase taxes when our economy is so fragile. I also believe tax increases will adversely impact jobs...are there not more than a few economists which share these opinions as well? BTW...I never declared Fackcheck to be unimpeachable...why do you make up this kind of shit?

Your question as to why I could accept one Factcheck article and not another is pretty purposeless if you acknowledge that someone can agree with certain things from a source and not others. But hey, I think you were going into that reflexive 'i have a hammer, that must be a nail' thing again.

As for the effects of taxes on the economy, it all depends on what taxes and what you're doing with the money. Increasing taxes to finance deficit reduction is very unwise, I agree. Increasing taxes on the wealthy to use it to stimulate aggregate demand is quite wise. In a vacuum tax increases will adversely impact jobs, but this policy proposal isn't being made as simply an increase in taxes. You yourself said it was part of a larger jobs program.

I believe there were several fact check organizations (including PolitiFact) who also supported Romney's claims regarding Bain. I'm imagine you think they all missed the boat as well. Doesn't surprise me I guess.

And there are lots and lots of other sources that are questioning it. I imagine you think they all missed the boat. Doesn't surprise me I guess. Incidentally WaPo's fact checker is now backing away from his initial full support of Romney's claims as more and more information comes out.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Taxes from earnings. The government doesn't earn anything. Well, some interest from TARP $$ the financial institutions paid back.

I had a new driveway put in this summer, paid the contractor for their services. I want roads built, an education system, police protection, etc. I pay for those services.

 

[sactoking]

The President's statement was idiotic on its face, wrong in its application, and true in the most technical sense.

First off, it was an idiotic thing to say. The plan language meaning of what he said was "Society, vis a vis the government, gave you what you have today."

It was true in the most technical sense that business is enabled by things like roads which are a societal trapping.

Its wrong in its application on two counts:
1) It presumes that absent current society none of those things would exist today. If humanity had evolved through some other societal structure we don't know what would exist so to presume that it would be nothing is fallacy. If you say that any society would contribute in some way then you must recognize that society is just an extension of cognitive intelligence so the President's statement would really boil down to "You owe what you have to being human" which is just a dumb thing to say.
2) All of the things with attribution in the statement are available to everyone. Everyone has access to roads (A), free education (B), the internet (C), fire services (D), and so on. So, if A+B+C+D+E = successful business and A+B+C+D+F = no successful business (where E and F are both individuals) then A, B, C, and D aren't relevant factors and can be omitted and only the person matters.

 

[fskimospy]

Its wrong in its application on two counts:
1) It presumes that absent current society none of those things would exist today. If humanity had evolved through some other societal structure we don't know what would exist so to presume that it would be nothing is fallacy. If you say that any society would contribute in some way then you must recognize that society is just an extension of cognitive intelligence so the President's statement would really boil down to "You owe what you have to being human" which is just a dumb thing to say.

No it doesn't. It just says that in our current system that's how it has happened.

2) All of the things with attribution in the statement are available to everyone. Everyone has access to roads (A), free education (B), the internet (C), fire services (D), and so on. So, if A+B+C+D+E = successful business and A+B+C+D+F = no successful business (where E and F are both individuals) then A, B, C, and D aren't relevant factors and can be omitted and only the person matters.

That's a pretty basic logic failure. To show that ABC and D weren't relevant factors you would have to have most people be able to succeed without them in our society.

 

[highland145]

What's your point?

The people's "collective contributions" aren't the "government." Without the earners/taxpayer/business people there would be no $$ for the government because the government doesn't earn any $$. Government has(should have) an obligation to see that it's supporters are provided with the means to continue/grow their business/thrive because of the $$ it received from them. Roads, bridges, defense, etc. Both sides are needed. Symbiotic not parasitic.

 

[highland145]

I had a new driveway put in this summer, paid the contractor for their services. I want roads built, an education system, police protection, etc. I pay for those services.

Correct and so do I. There is the expectation that if I pay my obligation (taxes), the government will uphold it's end of the deal and provide the public services. My part ended when I wrote the check.

 

[nanette1985]

This. Risked 20 years of savings/investments. Failure would have left me on the street.


costumers,

None of my businesses have ever had costumers. Though most of them have had TShirts.

 

[sactoking]

No it doesn't. It just says that in our current system that's how it has happened.

That doesn't matter. It has to have significance. The statement presumes that society's contributions have significance yet we cannot know that because we cannot compare to other possible societal outcomes. Not only can we not know that society's contribution was significant, we can't even know that society itself wasn't detrimental.

That's a pretty basic logic failure. To show that ABC and D weren't relevant factors you would have to have most people be able to succeed without them in our society.

Not at all, because success isn't measured on an absolute scale but a relative scale. Two people, given the exact same tools, come to different outcomes; the outcomes are a reflection of the people and not the tools. Whether one outcome is a "success" or not depends in part on how you view the other outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't matter. It has to have significance. The statement presumes that society's contributions have significance yet we cannot know that because we cannot compare to other possible societal outcomes. Not only can we not know that society's contribution was significant, we can't even know that society itself wasn't detrimental.

It has significance in our society, which is the system in which he's describing it. You are simply incorrect that his argument presupposes that it could not happen any other way.

Not at all, because success isn't measured on an absolute scale but a relative scale. Two people, given the exact same tools, come to different outcomes; the outcomes are a reflection of the people and not the tools. Whether one outcome is a "success" or not depends in part on how you view the other outcome.

Clearly he meant success in the way that we define it today. President Obama was not having a meta freshman dorm room weed discussion about the nature of success. Your post remains a logic failure.

I'm getting some pretty amazing ideas from people on here about how you seem to think speeches should be constructed. My suggestion to you is never attempt to follow your own rules in public speaking because if you do you will be speaking alone.

 

[fskimospy]

The people's "collective contributions" aren't the "government." Without the earners/taxpayer/business people there would be no $$ for the government because the government doesn't earn any $$. Government has(should have) an obligation to see that it's supporters are provided with the means to continue/grow their business/thrive because of the $$ it received from them. Roads, bridges, defense, etc. Both sides are needed. Symbiotic not parasitic.

People's collective contributions are explicitly the government. That's entirely what the government is made up of. We have set up a system to dispense collective goods and collective contributions throughout society. We call that the government.

 

[Bowfinger]

That doesn't matter. It has to have significance. The statement presumes that society's contributions have significance yet we cannot know that because we cannot compare to other possible societal outcomes. Not only can we not know that society's contribution was significant, we can't even know that society itself wasn't detrimental.

Not so. There are many countries that lack the tremendous physical, financial, and educational infrastructure we take for granted. These countries are often referred to by phrases such as "third-world hell holes" or "low-tax utopias". Opportunities for great success in such countries are quite limited. We have those opportunities in America, in part, because we pay significantly higher taxes.

Most of us are content with that arrangement; we'd rather keep half of our 64 oz Big Gulp than 95% of their 1 ounce shot glass. Unfortunately, we have a growing, greedy segment of our population that feel entitled to America's success at Guatemala's taxes. They aren't very good with math.

Not at all, because success isn't measured on an absolute scale but a relative scale. Two people, given the exact same tools, come to different outcomes; the outcomes are a reflection of the people and not the tools. Whether one outcome is a "success" or not depends in part on how you view the other outcome.

True, but irrelevant. Obama expressly acknowledges success is a combination of personal initiative and support from others. Those with less initiative will generally be less successful (ignoring other factors like family wealth and connections). That's fine. The issue is America's tremendous opportunities for success relative to countries who lack our great infrastructure.

 

[WackyDan]

When you are starting a new business you are taking advantage of the roads and infrastructure that is already there, paid for by the people who came before you.

So if I start a business today, investing thousands of dollars of my saved or borrowed money - None of my taxes that I paid for the last 26 of my working years (and longer if you count just sales tax) have nothing to do with that at all? Right.

 

[JTsyo]

Can you just imagine what the Liberals whold be saying if Romney or another Republican came out and say "You didn't build that job, it was given to you by a Corporation"

umm that would be true if it was a corporate job. I don't think there would be any coherent argument.

What was the bottom line to Obama's speech? Everyone helped you build your business so you should pay more taxes?

 

[waggy]

umm that would be true if it was a corporate job. I don't think there would be any coherent argument.

What was the bottom line to Obama's speech? Everyone helped you build your business so you should pay more taxes?

something like that.

though i am against small business getting more tax's. they already pay a LOT. i would like to see them change the laws so that huge company's pay what they should. do away with the ability to move the "office" into another country to get cheaper tax's. etc.

Also i wouldn't mind higher import tax's

but hell that's dragging the thread into something else.

 

[CitizenKain]

Obama needs to find a way to dumb his speeches down far enough for the rightwingers to be able to understand it. Maybe he can use crayons.

 

[soulcougher73]

So if I start a business today, investing thousands of dollars of my saved or borrowed money - None of my taxes that I paid for the last 26 of my working years (and longer if you count just sales tax) have nothing to do with that at all? Right.

Right. Your 26 years and counting are for the next generation.