Key to new jobs is small business

Real job creators want an end to the capital gains tax and the death tax, and a reduction in America's business tax rate, which is the second-highest in the world.

tell us how this will stimulate consumer demand.

"Americans who actually create jobs want tax relief in the form of a two-year, 50 percent payroll tax reduction. Real job creators want an end to the capital gains tax and the death tax, and a reduction in America's business tax rate, which is the second-highest in the world.
Real job creators understand that out-of-control government spending is crowding out private investment and creating a huge deficit burden for our children and grandchildren. In short, real job creators are asking for precisely the opposite of what the Obama White House (the administration with the least private sector experience in American history) is offering. "

Follow the money.

Don't you realize that our tax laws are written for the benefit of BIG business, to discourage new investment, new enterprise, and most importantly, NEW COMPETITION?

Obama is playing right into the hands of the established industrial titans.

our problem is lack of consumer demand. how do the corporate tax laws change that?

Agree NYCMATT. The incentives are skewed in favor of BIG BUSINESS instead of where they should be SMALL BUSINESS.

its nice to ignore facts. seems to be a lot of that going around.

NYCMatt = communiss
Riversider = communiss

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communiss partay?

Hardly.

I'm a strict CONSTITUTIONALIST.

(Look it up.)

All you constitute is a communiss anarchist. Stop trying to blow up American capitalism.

What's good for General Motors is good for you.

1)Crony Capitalism is not good for the economy.
2)What's good for General motors is not necessarily good for the American Economy.
a) company is a dinosaur
b) their cars will be made in China
c) Cost to tax payer per job(which won't last) WAS VERY EXPENSIVE

Businesses have a life span, they start out on a growth curve, plateau and die. While we may not have an idea how long a business will stay on each part of the curve the end result is fairly certain. And to restate the point, the smaller growing companies do the most hiring.

yes, the smaller growing companies do the most hiring. and have managed to do so despite your ridiculous assertion that somehow the game is rigged against them. tell us how changing corporate tax laws will result in increased consumer demand.

"yes, the smaller growing companies do the most hiring. and have managed to do so despite your ridiculous assertion that somehow the game is rigged against them. tell us how changing corporate tax laws will result in increased consumer demand."

As someone who's tried to be a "small business" owner, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the game IS, in fact, RIGGED against small business.

And no one said that changing corporate tax laws would be a panacea. It would, however, be a big help. Levelling the playing field to allow new competition would have a downward effect on prices, which WOULD spur increased consumer demand.

Doing this across the board, in conjunction with abolishing the Federal Reserve (and all means of top-down manipulation of the economy by elites with vested interests) would increase everyone's standard of living, because we would essentially abolish inflation.

can you be more specific about what is rigged against the small business owner other than health care?

"can you be more specific about what is rigged against the small business owner other than health care?"

Yes.

Banking. Retail. Farming. Oil. Just to name a few. Any industry where the barriers of entry are so high thanks to government regulation and taxation that no small business could even hope to enter the playing field.

I gave you an example in another thread about just trying to open a new laundromat in this city. Even if you have have the capital to buy a storefront (or secure a long-term lease) -- which can range from as "little" as $40,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars (just for the down payment) -- and before you even buy equipment (including, of course, washers and dryers), which can easily exceed $100,000 -- you have to pay a "tap in fee" to the city of $10,000 PER WASHER! Even a small laundromat with ten washers would have to pay $100,000 for a "fee" to the city -- just for permission to operate as a laundromat.

The company I work for is 44 people, we've been around just over 10 years now, growing slowly and will continue to grow as our prospects are good. But times are tough, we are more cautious, and healthcare costs, payroll taxes and space costs are probably are the taxes above and beyond the salaries we pay people and those factor seriously into our thinking about the pace of hiring. Our HC plan costs would have gone up 20% year over year so we switched to a lesser plan which means more out of pocket expense (but the plan is still more expensive although I haven't calculated how much). If we start to increase the city, state or federal taxes, including on a personal level (the owners look at how much they put in their pocket regardless of if the taxes are taken out in the company or personally) we'll do less.

As for space, we are in a unique position of being in the cheapest space for the past 8 years in our building but we need more space and now is a good time to be looking, so that turns out to be a wash for us.

Anyway, it's all related, consumer demand is driven by consumer confidence which has a tie to employment rates. Employment rates are tied to consumer and business demand. Business demand is tied to business confidence and to consumer demand. Basically, we need greater fluidity in the system to encourage higher marginal entrepreneurship and higher taxes and expenses in whatever form hinder that.

Personally I don't know what the exact right plan is on healthcare, I'd like to see more Americans having healthcare but I don't know details enough. This environmental extra push, seems poorly timed and more of a problem to tackle when times are good rather than times are bad.

I'd keep the estate tax if I had to pick one particular tax to keep (higher) in lieu of other taxes being kept (higher). Estate tax is another rich man's problem like greater environmental regulation.

"Estate tax is another rich man's problem like greater environmental regulation."

The vast majority of estate taxes are paid on FAMILY BUSINESSES ... farms in particular ... the very institutions we should be trying to preserve.

And all too often, particularly with businesses that are operating close to the margin, the family is forced to sell off the business just to pay the taxes.

And according to a Joint Economic Committee report, the estate tax amounts to less than 2% of total federal revenues, while costing the government and taxpayers approximately the same amount collected for enforcement and compliance.

I don't believe that but if someone wants to exclude farmers from estate taxes, I'll bite.

By the way, if the cost of enforcement of the estate tax equals collections, then those paying the estate tax are subsidising employment which after all, is trickle down, right?

Yes, those long-suffering American farm families: the Monsantos, the MacMillans(Cargills), the Archer-Daniel-Midlands, the Grande-Rancheros, the Gallos, all those tobacco farmers, sugar moguls, etc. etc. etc.

Cry me a river.

"Yes, those long-suffering American farm families: the Monsantos, the MacMillans(Cargills), the Archer-Daniel-Midlands, the Grande-Rancheros, the Gallos, all those tobacco farmers, sugar moguls, etc. etc. etc.

Cry me a river."

You know nothing about farms.

Watch "Food, Inc." and get back to us.

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the "Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses," which made permanent the current estate tax provisions -- estates that exceed $3.5 million are subject to a 45% tax rate.

so...mainematt, we're talking about farms that are worth more than $3.5 million which by the way is doubled for a couple who set up a simple trust.

"Food, Inc." ... as I said, NYCMatt = communiss

And I know all about farms ... I grow tomatoes.

You need to get past "Dick and Jane" and zoom ahead to the 21st century.

And CC, lets be blunt ... it's the dead people who are subject to that tax rate. Their living adult children can get jobs or start businesses, right?

"so...mainematt, we're talking about farms that are worth more than $3.5 million which by the way is doubled for a couple who set up a simple trust."

The average U.S. farm is worth $4 million. After expenses, the average farmer's personal income is less than $18,000/year. Nearly 6% of farm households have had a negative household income over the past 10 years.

how can a farm be worth $4 million if it only throws off $18,000 a year? i don't think the estate tax is going to fix that problem.

You mean after countless weasly special tax loopholes, depreciation schedules, and phantom losses it's less than $18,000/year.

Streeteasy should provide an interpreter for you.

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200503/taxes.html

March 14, 2005 -- America's tax system hurts small businesses and deters would-be entrepreneurs, researchers and business owners told President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform Tuesday.

"We have heard two strong messages: compliance costs and predictability," said Connie Mack, the chairman of the 9-person Advisory Panel and former Florida Senator.

Small businesses, said the senator, are disproportionately hurt by the complexity of the current tax system, most notably because of the enormous costs required to comply with the Internal Revenue Services. According to David Hurley, the owner of Landmark Engineering and one of the persons who addressed the panel, a company with $5 million of revenue spends the same on compliance as a company with $2.5 million: roughly $100,000.

According to Hurley, the answer to reducing the cost of compliance lies in simplifying the tax code. One of his suggestions involves using the same filings for both the state and federal Internal Revenue Services.

The current tax system, which changes year-to-year, makes planning business investments difficult. In 2003, for instance, the amount allowed to expense equipment was increased from $24,000 to $100,000; therefore, companies that bought equipment in 2002, but could have waited one more year, did not benefit from the one time expense.

"As soon as you understand the rules in 2004, they change in 2005," said Senator Mack.

Beyond affecting businesses in operation, taxes dictate entrepreneurship, said Donald Bruce, a professor at the University of Tennessee and one of the four persons asked to speak to the Panel.

In a recent study, Bruce found that those who expect their tax rate to fall by starting a business are more likely start a business. On the other hand, when an individual’s expected tax rate increases by starting a business, they more often then not will remain in their wage job, thus quelling entrepreneurial activity.

The meeting, held in Tampa, FL, was the third in a series of six. After the scheduled meetings, the Panel will have a hearing on alternative tax plans and then submit their findings to the Treasury Department. Currently, the three most popular plans the committee has heard are a flat income tax, a national sales tax (or consumption tax), and a value-added tax, said Senator Mack.

horseshit.

businesses should make investment decisions on the merits---a tax break should be gravy. if the go/no go analysis is that close, answer is no go.

starting a business should be based on having an idea, a dream, a desire, etc. not trying to game the tax system.

"starting a business should be based on having an idea, a dream, a desire, etc. not trying to game the tax system."

Unfortunately, in our present system, if you're a small business owner, you HAVE to game the tax system just to get into the ballpark.

more drivel, mainematt.

use all the caps you want...still waiting to hear about how a farm that throws off $18,000 a year can be worth $4 million.

tell us about how google, facebook and twitter gamed the tax system to create value for their owners and investors.

"google, facebook and twitter" don't create jobs.

"use all the caps you want...still waiting to hear about how a farm that throws off $18,000 a year can be worth $4 million."

Easy. That's just the way it works.

The hypoethical $4 milllion dollar farm could easily only produce annual income in the two figure range.(or there about). It's worth $4,000,000 because the land could be sold for another purpose.

like what? housing development? sports stadium? you just make this shit up and expect people to believe you?

Someone apparently hasn't had his daily BM yet ...

google has 10,000 employees. somehow they don't count?

No.

Google has 6800 employees.

And the economy lost 7,000,000 jobs over the past 18 months.

If an online titan like Google can't even employ 10,000 people, it's clear that online won't save us or our economy.

the point is that they added all these jobs in the last 10 years from a base of zero. why wasn't the deck stacked against them? perhaps, because they had a good idea? and the drive and determination to see it through?

from google's website:

Google Management
Co-founders Larry Page, president of Products, and Sergey Brin, president of Technology, brought Google to life in September 1998. Since then, the company has grown to more than 10,000 employees worldwide.

but, no doubt, you know better; or better yet, why bother counting jobs overseas?

"why wasn't the deck stacked against them? perhaps, because they had a good idea? and the drive and determination to see it through?"

Yes.

And even more importantly, they had ZERO competition ... and therefore, ZERO government regulations lobbied for by industrial titans like Chase and GE holding them back from succeeding.

"why bother counting jobs overseas?"

Because I'm an American.

are you delusional?

what about yahoo? they were the giants of on line search. you have outdone your own stupidity here.

stick with the farmers. tell me: what are they going to do with all that land?

"stick with the farmers. tell me: what are they going to do with all that land?"

Continue losing money on it, since most don't have the educations or job skills necessary to make a living in Manhattan.

so...how is it worth $4 million?

It probably has $3.99 million worth of fertilizer-source petroleum residue embedded in its surface, waiting to be extracted and reused.

I see I'm not needed here to degrade the quality of the discourse.

"The vast majority of estate taxes are paid on FAMILY BUSINESSES ... farms in particular ... the very institutions we should be trying to preserve."

So then exempt farms from the estate tax and keep the tax in place. Reducing Paris Hilton's or Tiger Wood's estate taxes will not create a single job.

Never needed; never wanted

and giving tax cuts to small businesses right now will not help the. Why? Because he banks will not lend to them. Unless they have credit, a tax cut does squat. Right now the only ones who can borrow are large corporations. So the best idea would be to take the pressure the banks to lend to busineses and to set up som sort of lending facility for them with some of the unspent TARP money.

Exempt the farms, but generously tax the dead people who owned them, and/or their good-for-nothing living adult offspring and other undeserving kinfolk.

and taxes should only be lowered for businesses that expand their payroll. If a company is going to lay people off, then screw them. Raise their taxes.

"In short, real job creators are asking for precisely the opposite of what the Obama White House (the administration with the least private sector experience in American history) is offering."

Oops, WRONG!!! Such a shame tha the author of the article gets their information from Glenn Beck. That's right, that line came directly from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

"It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal. That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck."

More likely they both got their text from the continuous-process RNC soundbite feed.

Why would Bloomberg push this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/science/earth/05bloomberg.html
Bloomberg Drops an Effort to Cut Building Energy Use

By MIREYA NAVARRO
Published: December 4, 2009

After intense opposition from building owners, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has dropped the most far-reaching initiative of his plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Richard Perry/The New York Times

Michael R. Bloomberg, at an environmental-themed event in September, is weakening a package of bills that would cut emissions.

The plan, which the owners said was too costly, called for all buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to undergo audits to determine which renovations would make them more energy efficient, and for owners to then pay for many of those changes.

The mayor wants to go forward with the proposal to require energy audits, but now is leaving it up to the building owners whether to undertake the changes called for by those audits.

It would have put New York far ahead of other cities in the green-buildings movement. Many cities require that newly constructed buildings be energy efficient, but do not impose those standards on existing properties. Some 22,000 buildings, together accounting for nearly half the square footage in the city, would have been affected.

“It’s another unfunded mandate, and this is just not the time for it,” said Stuart Saft, chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, an opponent of the plan. “Come back in five years when we’re past this recession. At this point it’s just a slap in the face.”

"“It’s another unfunded mandate, and this is just not the time for it,” said Stuart Saft, chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, an opponent of the plan. “Come back in five years when we’re past this recession. At this point it’s just a slap in the face.”"

THANK YOU.

With skyrocketing taxes, utilities, and labor costs associated with routine maintenance and repairs, "owners" -- many of whom are UNEMPLOYED -- are ready to snap under the crushing strain as they continue to see their monthly maintenance reach higher and higher levels.

"Greener" buildings right now are a luxury we simply can't afford this year. Or next.

"Mr. Bloomberg had also said the package of bills would create 19,000 construction jobs, for electricians, insulators and others."

""Mr. Bloomberg had also said the package of bills would create 19,000 construction jobs, for electricians, insulators and others.""

Short-term jobs.

For any new government initiatives that require the populace to fork over their hard-earned dollars just to be in "compliance", it's important to FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Who ultimately benefits financially from these new "laws"?

The Trilateral Commission?

The Green Party?

Bloomberg L.P.?

not the farmers?

"The Trilateral Commission?

The Green Party?

Bloomberg L.P.?"

Try Bloomie's rich industrialist friends who'll be selling the raw building materials.

So you admit to being a communiss.

I see I'm not needed here to degrade the quality of the discourse.

hi hfscomm1

so...this was a plot to sell building materials? lucky for us that it was uncovered in time. building material gate?

hi hfscomm1

alamefart, you missed the van this morning.

hi hfscomm1