[Rhodes22-list] Tax Question reply for Ben S...

Tue Oct 14 05:13:38 EDT 2008

Ed,

I've been out flying for the last few days.  Judging by the number of
people partying on the Riverwalk in San Antonio, the economy's doing
fine.

Ben is mostly correct, most small business income flows directly
through the owners tax return.  The Obama bullseye is on those making
over $250,000 per year.  That sounds like a lot of money to some
people but it really isn't.  We've been down this road before with
Jimmy Carter and luxury taxes.  It will be 10 times worse under Obama.
 The proper description is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION!  That's what the
whole guys career has been about when he wasn't directing public money
to his friends private businesses. I still can't believe people are
stupid enough to believe this crap, but then again, there are lots of
stupid people in the world. You can't give 95% of wage earners a tax
cut when the bottom 40% don't pay federal income taxes.  What he
doesn't say in the fine print is that low income people will get a
check.  In some parts of the country we have a name for that, it's
called WELFARE.  In other parts it is called "fairness". Call it what
you want, it is income redistribution.

Raising the capital gains rate will be economic suicide.  We could
eliminate our current "flight of capital" issues by suspending the
capital gains tax altogether for a few years. This whole candidacy of
Obama has been wishful thinking.  Who really knows what the guy will
do?  He's hung around Marxists his entire life, you can bet most
decisions will have a Marxist patina to them.

Frankly, I'm not too worried.  One, his getting elected is not a sure
thing.  Two, if elected, his Chicago shenanigans can't be kept hidden
forever. Remember this name - State Street Bank.  I'm guessing that
will be the smoking gun.  Three, even if he dodges impeachment, he'll
only serve one term.  Four, I'll move much of my money overseas, so
will lots of others.  That's not very patriotic but necessary.

I remember selling airplanes during the Carter administration with
high inflation, ultra-high interest rates, and high marginal tax
rates.  You could put together some pretty creative (read stupid) tax
deals with a buyer that would make an airplane positive cash flow for
the first year.  It was counter-productive in the long run for the
economy but you did what you had to do.  Some people are too young to
remember those years, others are just dumb.

Brad

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> All that you said sounds good, but Obama is saying that he will cut capital
> gains taxes to small businesses.  So if you in the 95 % how is he going do
> that, Voodoo? (Wasn't that a term some time back?)
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> Addendum for Andrew:
> Negative advertising
> By Thomas Sowell
>
> One of the oldest phenomena of American elections— criticism of one's
> opponent— has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as
> "negative advertising."
>
> Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You
> might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many of the
> graduates of even our elite universities are.
>
> Although Grover Cleveland was elected President twice, he had to overcome a
> major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was
> considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants like Lincoln and
> Jefferson were called names that neither McCain nor Obama has been called.
>
> Why then is "negative advertising" such a big deal these days? The dirty
> little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past
> and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it
> with liberals.
>
> In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts called himself a
> "technocrat," a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal
> track record of big spending, big taxes, and policies that were
> anti-business and pro-criminal.
>
> When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during
> the Presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked— not by
> Dukakis' record, but by the Republicans' exposing his record.
>
> John Kerry, with a very similar ultra-liberal record, topped off by
> inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on American military men in
> Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. And
> the mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who
> labeled Kerry a liberal.
>
> Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives
> speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some
> conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a
> man is the very opposite of what he claims to be— unless they check out the
> record of what he has actually done?
>
> In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent
> years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does,
> creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize
> political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to
> lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing
> group ACORN did.
>
> After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he
> promoted the same polarization in his other roles.
>
> That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling
> programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the
> schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling
> the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.
>
> When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine
> that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and
> resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up
> that message?
>
> How subtle is "G-d damn America!"?
>
> Yet those in the media who deplore "negative advertising" regard it as
> unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric
> of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should trick to the
> "real issues."
>
> What are called "the real issues" are election-year talking points, while
> the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction— and
> somehow an unworthy distraction.
>
> Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they
> do? A few gullible people do— and they often get deceived and defrauded big
> time.
>
> Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting
> himself a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and
> the racial divide— after decades of promoting polarization in each of his
> successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.
>
> Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse
> than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land
> through sheer deception
>
>
> benonvelvetelvis wrote:
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> The only businesses who pay an income tax (including capital gains) are
>> C-corps.  Very, very few "small businesses" are incorporated as C-corps.
>> Probably 95+% of us are LLCs, LLPs or S-Corps, which means a variety of
>> things, one of which is that we take the business's bottom line profit,
>> and
>> add that number to our personal income tax.  That's a really simplified
>> explanation, but it's basically how it works.
>>
>> So all that blather about small business taxes is political bunk.  It
>> affects almost no real small businesses.  If they were going to change
>> employment taxes or property taxes or sales taxes, they could make a
>> difference to the small business owner, but income -- doesn't really
>> matter
>> too much.
>>
>> Speaking of finance, I caught wind that there was a bit of a market
>> rebound
>> today.  I might be able to retire some day after all.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Tootle
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:43 PM
>> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Tax Question for Brad
>>
>>
>> Brad,
>>
>> Obama is proposing reducing capital gains taxes on small businesses.  Is
>> there any capital gains involved in your construction company?  Inquiring
>> minds want to know about your capital gains.
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>> Andrew please note no attachment nor addendum for you this time.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Tax-Question-for-Brad-tp19960487p19960487.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tax-Question-for-Brad-tp19960487p19964572.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>