Obama Plans to Propose $38 Billion Business Tax Breaks in State of the Union Speech

[Cali_Democrat]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aecaWhTGpJIQ&pos=8

By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Roger Runningen

Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama tonight will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment, an administration official said.

Obama will call for renewal of the 50 percent so-called bonus depreciation in his State of the Union address to the nation, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Extending the break, which expired Dec. 31, would save companies that make purchases of equipment such as tractors, wind turbines, solar panels and computers a total of $38 billion over this year and next by allowing a 50 percent write- off of the cost in the first year, the official said.

“That’s a twofer for manufacturers,” said Monica McGuire, senior policy director of taxation for the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington trade group that has lobbied for the extension. “It helps the sellers of capital equipment and it helps the buyers of capital equipment. It’s more than a net-positive.”

Bonus depreciation was an element of the $787 billion economic-recovery legislation adopted last February. It has also been a feature of earlier stimulus measures, including those adopted in 2002 and 2003 under President George W. Bush.

Read more at link.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Slap a Buy American clause on it. eom

[Lorien]

3. Really. Otherwise it will be just as effective as all the BushCo tax breaks. nt

[Clio the Leo]

2. Another goody. NT

[MadHound]

4. Tax breaks are the worst way to stimulate the economy

You get more bang for your buck so to speak if you actually go out and create jobs by having the government being the spender of last resort. Classic Keynesian economics.

That's in part why the last stimulus was such a big bust, forty percent of it was taken up with tax breaks in Obama's vain effort to appear bipartisan.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. If the tax breaks encourage businesses to buy equipment, then it will stimulate the economy.

We shall see.

[MadHound]

6. Yes, it will,

What I am say is that there are much more effective ways to stimulate the economy than tax breaks. At this point in time, with our huge debt and deficit, with our economy continuing to tank, can we really afford to fuck around with what is the worst form of economic stimulus going? Instead shouldn't we be be bringing out the big guns and doing the very best that we possibly can?

[Oregone]

10. Absolutely

Every government dollar tied up in inefficient stimulus is really a dollar being deprived of optimum return & stimulus.

[timeforpeace]

38. Corporations to the rescue! Or are we making a distinction between corporations and businesses?

[Oregone]

39. Corporation is just a business structure

Many, many "small businesses" are Limited Liability Corporations or S-Corporations these days. Its just a business structure

[bestgal]

88. Businesses that profit are the only small businesses that need the break

I think the best way to stimulate the economy, and make businesses profitable is to give small businesses tax breaks. Sites like http://businessesthatprofit.com/ are the small businesses out there that supply this country and put us on top.

[Oregone]

9. How would it? Seriously?

The only businesses getting a tax cut would have to be profitable AFTER buying the equipment. That money doesn't just sit around and get spent the next year on upgrades. Its profit after all. Its goes to private people's bank accounts.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. The businesses selling the equipment will benefit from these tax breaks

More equipment will be sold and more jobs could be created to deal with the increase demand as a result of the tax cuts and the buying of equipment.

[Oregone]

12. First assumption is that tax breaks will cause increased production/demand (supply-side)

Why, bottom-line, will increased private dividends to shareholders cause a business to purchase more equipment?

The business won't have more money (the shareholders will). How does this translate to increased demand?

Fill me in. Weve been waiting almost 30 years for a real answer to this.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. The businesses will only get these tax breaks of they buy equipment

They won't get the tax breaks for remaining idle. The economic stimulation comes into play when manufacturers see the uptick in demand because of the tax cuts.

These tax breaks only apply when equipment is acquired.

[Oregone]

16. If a business is profitable, and has the capital to upgrade equipment, why, oh why...

Does the government subsidizing fatter dividends to shareholders AFTER the purchasing encourage the purchasing to happen in the first place?

If a business is profitable, has capital for upgrade, and has demand to justify doing so, do you, in your right mind, think additional incentive to uninvolved shareholders is needed to make this happen? Its a reward to the rich for a company doing what is sane and economically feasible.

But, lets just ignore that the demand and profit must first exist, and take care of the shareholders first. Sure, right, they'll take care of us.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. The point of extending this program is to continue to encourage MORE demand for capital equipment

During a time like this when economic stimulation is required, we want to encourage demand even when there probably wouldn't have been as much demand without the tax breaks. The point is to artificially spike demand. That's the point of the stimulus.

Companies are being rewarded because they are buying equipment and businesses realize that they can purchase their equipment and receive a tax break.

[Oregone]

21. And how does subsidizing shareholder's dividends encourage demand?

You still haven't addressed this. And you keep talking about companies being rewarded. That isn't happening here. Only the shareholders will be rewarded.

This is Reaganomics. Voodoo capitalism.

[PA Democrat]

41. Research shows tax breaks are least effective way to stimulate the economy.

I posted the link down thread.

[JamesA1102]

77. Here's a chart

[PA Democrat]

79. Thanks! I remember seeing that bar graph and couldn't find it.

[daleanime]

7. Damn straight....

almost anything is better, extending unemployment, food stamps, etc... But that doesn't get the money where they want it to go.:rant:

[PA Democrat]

32. I've posted a link below which backs up your statement.

Tax cuts for business are particularly ineffective.


Fiscal Bang for the Buck- Multiplier Effect

One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending


Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Bus...

[ibegurpard]

62. not necessarily this one

who's making all this equipment? who's shipping it?

[Oregone]

8. Supply-Side Reaganomics

Allowing profitable businesses to pay less taxes and disburse more dividends/returns to private owner(s)/shareholder(s) does nothing to actually help businesses on an operational level. Businesses need increased demand, and goods & service vouchers for investment/growth/hiring wouldn't hurt; they do not need their owners to get richer. That government subsidized money going to the owners does not wind back up in the business, and only drains the treasury that much more

[Cali_Democrat]

13. The businesses selling this equipment can see the increase in demand.

That's where your growth and hiring would come into play. Businesses will be encouraged to buy more equipment as a result of this proposal.

[Oregone]

15. How do tax cuts on profits going to the rich encourage a business to buy more equipment

The real problem here is that Reaganism reared its ugly head and every one, Democrats alike, just started believing in it like Jesus. They can't prove it. They can't defend it. They can't even describe how it works. But just as a wild-eyed faithful will spend hours talking about their savior walking on water, they will proclaim that when rich private shareholders have fatter bank accounts, magically the businesses they got it from will turn around an benevolently impart goodness upon the people. Its voodoo and its nuts.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. This proposal only applies to companies that acquire equipment.

See my post 14.

[Oregone]

18. I saw it. Still absurd

A voucher to purchase equipment is one thing. A tax cut after it happens is just absurdity

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Companies will realize that they will get the tax break when buying new equip.

In many cases, it's entirely possible that companies will not have bought new equipment had the tax break not been there.

[Oregone]

22. "it's entirely possible that companies will not have bought new equipment had the tax break not bee"

If a company is profitable and has demand & capital to justify re-investment, but will not, then it has no economic reason to thrive and exist. In fact, Id assert such companies probably wouldn't still exist, or would in such negligible numbers the government shouldn't cater to them

[Cali_Democrat]

25. A company can be even more profitable using these tax breaks and acquiring equipment

That's a scenario you're not seeing. Obama is obviously extending the program because he has seen that it has increased demand for heavy equipment.

[Oregone]

29. What is the value being more profitable (especially when the government subsidizes the profit)?

Do you think that creates jobs? When shareholders have fatter bank accounts, do they magically impart benevolence upon a population? Is that what you are getting at?

Why is profit inherently valuable in this predicament? Profit doesn't make businesses have more money to spend (profit is the money siphoned out of the business each year). It doesn't make the population as a whole have more money to buy products with (because a minority gets a share of the profits).

If the government just wanted businesses to be more profitable, why wouldn't they just directly cut a check to the top 1% of the population (the majority shareholders in industry)?

The problem is that you are not focusing on directly stimulating production/demand, but you are assuming there is some type of causual relationship between rich people getting richer and increased demand.

[asdjrocky]

23. Goody. Tax breaks.

Where have I heard that one before?

[Oregone]

24. What is new is to see "liberals" defend em

Watch em squirm while they carry water for their saavy, intelligent leader.

[JoePhilly]

26. Worse to see Dems who think that every tax break is an evil thing.

No less ridiculous than the far right who claims that every single tax is an evil thing.

[jefferson_dem]

31. +1

Targeted tax breaks for businesses are a fine idea. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Oregone]

35. Why?

When the government subsidizes dividends for private shareholders, to help the rich get richer, why is that a "fine idea"? How does this help the economy?

[Oregone]

33. Just as ridiculous as imagining an opponent's argument then trying to tear it down

[JoePhilly]

43. The post I responded to is against a Dem supporting ANY tax break.

I'm accurate.

[Oregone]

48. Of course you are accurate. Context is irrelevant

Riiight

[JoePhilly]

53. Context????

Look ... if people want to make a weak claim, and then argue that the claim is limited by CONTEXT ... then THEY need to make the complete context clear.

As stated, a dem defending any tax cut is bad.

[Oregone]

57. We are talking about business tax cuts here meant as stimulative measures.

[JoePhilly]

58. Yes ... a business tax cuts that small business can also use ...

And it is PART of many stimulative measures, not the only one by any stretch of the imagination.

There is NOTHING wrong with this measure.

[Oregone]

61. In your view, there is nothing wrong with the measure

Others do not understand how the government subsidizing the dividends of owners helps stimulate the economy (or helps businesses at all). If this works, just make the Bush tax cuts permanent so these rich people have plenty of money to take care of others, as they do so well.

[JoePhilly]

66. You seem to think that anyone in business is RICH.

I'm not sure what your financial status is ... but for me ... personally, the GOP offers much more on the tax front. And so I can say with no concern ... your attempt to connect THIS tax break to Bush's tax breaks is ridiculous.

Without divulging too much ... my wife and I make over the 250k a year ... and that is often used as a bright line. Bush gave me a tax break I did not need. One I did not request. And in 2008, McCain promised me more.

Small businesses which are run by people who are not rich can use this break to upgrade. Oh the horror.

[Oregone]

70. The majority ownership of industry is by the rich

[PA Democrat]

36. When there are much better ways to stimulate the economy

proposing corporate tax breaks may not be evil, but it is stupid.

Fiscal Bang for the Buck- Multiplier Effect

One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending


Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Bus...

[JoePhilly]

44. Do you think every "business" tax break is only a "corporate" tax break ...

The proposal is for BUSINESS. Not all business is corporate.

And then ... you seem to be playing the "this OR that" game.

You think there are other measures that would be more helpful ... those can be debated.

But I do not see anything BAD in this proposal.

This same thing happened the other day ... Obama proposes an increase to the child credit, and many screamed that single people don't get it. So its bad.

As if EVERY proposal has to have some candy in it for me ... or I scream.

[Oregone]

47. No, but its really absolutely irrelevant to the business structure in question

Only profitable businesses will recieve breaks. Only liquid businesses will be purchasing new equipment. And the reality is, only businesses with adequate demand (or expected increases) will actually do so. All these conditions dictate the behavior prior to the existence of a tax break. And merely making sure the recievers of the profit (not the business) recieve even more profit from the tax breaks doesn't increase any production/demand in the economy. In the end, it helps the rich get richer. Bottom line. If you think that translates to a better economy, that is sad.

[JoePhilly]

52. Compare this to the cash for clunkers ....

In that program, people who could afford to buy a car got a break for doing so. Was that a bad program too?

Many businesses are reticent to spend. As you note, they are solvent, but many are not spending.

So this gives them a little incentive.

Also ... as a person with a 401k ... who has been funding it for 20 years ... I don't mind Obama helping business some.

[Oregone]

56. Its not comparable

C4C was a personal tax rebate expressed as a credit at POS.

A business credit at the POS would be preferable to a tax break (because it solves liquidity issues), but more ineffective compared to good & service vouchers. Regardless, both aren't exactly what is being described here.


"So this gives them a little incentive."

Not really, in the sense you are comparing it to personal incentives given out in C4C. It doesn't give businesses more money to spend. It gives shareholders larger, subsidized dividends. Do you believe that ensuring the rich can be richer translates to higher demand and production in the near term and future?

Money flows differently in business from revenue, to expenses, to profit, to taxes, to dividends. The purchaser of a car (the person) benefited at the point of sale in C4C. The business, which is the purchaser, doesn't directly benefit from a tax break on profits after a purchase is made. Its comparing apples to oranges.

[JoePhilly]

63. Come on ... apples and oranges ... please.

In a small or medium business ... you don't really have apples and oranges, you have fruit salad.

If they were considering any upgrade, this helps their bottom line.

You keep focusing on "share holders", I guess because you are concerned about big business. Last I saw, about 56% of all Americans have a 401k.

And you still don't seem to think that have companies, large and small upgrade their equipment, is good for the economy.

[Oregone]

65. Yes, shareholders...small businesses are often set up as corps

LLCs, S-Corps, etc. Revenue is collected, expenses are made, taxes are paid, and the rest goes to owners (who if involved in production are also paid additional salary).

Increasing the profits divested to the owners doesn't necessarily have any effect on the bottom line, at the expense/reinvestment stage. Its just not the truth and its not how businesses really work.

And yes, Americans might have 401Ks but that doesn't make them the majority owners of industry. Wealth isn't distributed so evenly, sorry.

Equipment upgrades are great for business and the economy. I just don't think cutting the owners a break is a necessary incentive to make em happen, or enables a business to be able to do em anymore.

[JoePhilly]

68. And the tax break on home mortgage ... bad too ... right?

Look ... during 2009 ... we desperately needed the government to step in and spend.

Now ... we need companies of all sizes to take a deep breath and start to spend again ... this encourages them to do so.

We are trying to kick start an economy.

And as for the 401ks ... do you think the people who saw their 401k drop 60% care that they are not the majoroty??? They only care about their ability to use that money to retire some day ... which, many of them can now do ... since he market rebound.

[Oregone]

71. Not a bit. Decent personal tax break to promote personal tax fairness

Of course, we aren't talking about personal taxes here, are we?

[PA Democrat]

80. Yes. I've worked for both a fortune 500 company and a sole proprietorship.

and the decision making process is pretty much the same in either one. Businesses will make a decision to buy equipment only if there is a positive impact on the bottom line.

Before I could get any purchase of new equipment approved, I had to do a cost benefit analysis. While tax break might tip the net present value from negative into positive territory for some equipment purchases, I'd guess that the vast majority of businesses getting the tax credit would have made the purchase with or without the tax credit. So the tax credit will simply go to the owners' profits.

[PA Democrat]

69. Businesses whether they are incorporated or not make decisions

on capital expenditures based upon the impact to their bottom line. It's basic economics and finance. Not about "what's in it for me" but rather what's best for the country overall.

[phleshdef]

84. Or Dems that shit on progressive policies that favors the domestic manufacturing sector...

[Cali_Democrat]

28. No "squirming" here

Just the facts my friend. :hi:

You seem to come from the perspective that all tax breaks for businesses are bad no matter what. I tend to disagree. I think tax breaks for businesses, when targeted effectively, can help to stimulate the economy.

We've had a lively conversation. Let's just agree to disagree. :)

[Oregone]

30. Strawman. I'm not saying tax cuts are "bad"

I'm saying that they do not directly translate (if at all) to increased demand & production. Every dollar budgeted for tax cuts cannot be alternatively used for more traditional Keynesian stimulus that focuses on increasing production directly. Therefore, you are inefficiently burning money from the treasury which can actually be used to heavily help the problem.

The government subsidizing dividends and helping the rich get richer is bad fiscal policy and terrible stimulus. Counting on them to hand it back in efficient ways to the people hasn't been working for a long time.

[ProSense]

34. What are you talking about?

"I'm saying that they do not directly translate (if at all) to increased demand & production."

A tax credit means an action has to first take place before the credit is applied.

[Oregone]

37. Exactly my point!

The action has already taken place.

Sending a bigger dividend check as a reward to private shareholders thereafter does nothing to improve the economy. The action has already taken place by a viable, profitable, and liquid company, so such a reward after the fact to the funds siphoned from the company can hardly be considered an incentive to make the action happen in the first place.

Its a silly notion. Is Reaganomics.

[ProSense]

40. You don't know what you're talking about. n/t

[Oregone]

42. Good retort!

Complex argument in favor of the infallible leader who can make no folly. Its only wrong when Reagan does it.

[ProSense]

49. "The action has already taken place. " The only one that

such a statement deserves. It's dumb.

Let's wipe out the earned income tax credit beacause people have already fed their kids.

[Oregone]

51. Firstly, its really spot on. Secondly, this is about business tax, not personal

In business taxes, only the profit is taxed, and that money is disbursed away from the business (not invested into the business). Do not confuse tax theory on businesses with personal. Its silly and dishonest.

Think about it. A tax cut only effects a profitable business. Such a business must have liquidity to already purchase the equipment. Such a business should have enough demand to justify the purchase. Therefore, such a business should purchase the equipment irregardless of how much dividends the private shareholders receive. This tax cut will not affect how much money a business has to invest, but rather, how much money the owner(s) receive after the investments are made, and taxes are paid on the profits. To think that subsidizing private dividends has a casual relationship with how much equipment a profitable, liquid company will buy takes a faithful leap in logic

[ProSense]

55. "A tax cut only effects a profitable business. "

A tax credit is not a tax cut.

A tax credit to first-time home buyers is not a tax cut.

Something has to happen to effect a tax credit. The stimulus reduction in payroll taxes was a tax cut. There was no action required to earn it, and it effectively reduced a rate.

[Oregone]

59. You are missing the point

The conditions that must exist for the action to happen dictate that it should prior to a tax incentive (some of such conditions may require government intervention which may be diminished due to funds allocated to the supply-side). This isn't going to make a bunch of on-the-edge businesses go out and engage in massive reinvestment. On the other-hand, businesses sitting in good territory with great projections will already have the solvency and incentive to do so anyway.

The only people directly benefiting will be the receivers of the profit (not the businesses themselves who see none of the profit in the first place), as the government subsidizes their share. Ive yet to read any valid argument that suggests there is a direct causual (not correlating) relationship between what owners take home and stimulated demand & production.

[ProSense]

67. No, I'm not.

A tax credit is not a tax cut.

[Oregone]

72. The point is about supply-side economics, and you don't get that

Does subsidizing private dividends have a causal relationship on demand/production?

[asdjrocky]

45. I don't think there is anything certain people won't defend.

Be it our Presidents actions or his in-actions.

I can understand the syndrome because Terrell Owens once played for the 49ers.

[ProSense]

27. Excellent. n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

46. What bullshit. So much for main st. - again, favors for wall st.

This is unbelievable.

[ProSense]

50. Wall Street?

An FYI for people who don't know what they're talking about: Carlson says Obama's business tax cut talk is "surprising" and "Republin-esque" (sic)--but he's already done it


Loaded with real information.

[JoePhilly]

54. BINGO.

[phleshdef]

82. Since when the hell was helping manufacturing in this nation ever a "favor for Wall St"?

I think you need to re-evaluate that statement a bit.

[harun]

87. If he wants to help manufacturing he should throw 100 billion at wind and high speed rail.

[phleshdef]

89. Oh, right, because thats the ONLY things we manufacture.

People like you are less interested in actual reality and more interested in throwing around talking points that give you the illusion of appearing "more left than thou".

You completely FAIL to refute my point. The tax breaks proposed help manufacturing, which means it helps labor and unions and the middle class and the backbone of blue collar America. You can't deny that. Don't even bother trying.

[amandabeech]

60. But where will the equipment be made?

If it is not made here, then the benefit to the U.S. will be less.

Our money will go directly overseas, most likely to China.

I'd like to see some restrictions here.

I'm not interested in stimulating any economy but the U.S.

[optimator]

64. more TRICKLE DOWN VOODOO

just run as a fuckin republican next time.

[NYC_SKP]

73. Good. We can't very well expect new jobs without businesses to hire people.

1. Helping Small Businesses Expand Investment, Hire Workers and Access Credit

* Tax cuts to support additional business investment next year - with a particular focus on struggling small businesses - with much of the cost recouped over time.
* Zero capital gains for small businesses: To encourage investment by small businesses and improve their access to capital, the Administration is calling for a one-year elimination of the tax on capital gains from new investments in small business stock. The Recovery Act allowed a 75% exclusion from capital gains taxes on small business investments.
* Extension of enhanced expensing provisions for small businesses: The Administration is also calling for the extension through 2010 of the Recovery Act provision that allows small businesses to immediately expense up to $250,000 of qualified investment.
* Extension of Recovery Act bonus depreciation tax incentive: To give businesses an incentive to invest, the Administration is calling for extending the Recovery Act provision that accelerates the rate at which business can deduct the cost of capital expenditures. This provision will put more than $20 billion in the hands of businesses in 2010, while enabling Treasury to recoup much of the funding as business regain their strength.
* A new tax cut for small businesses to encourage hiring in 2010. Although the economy is now growing again, many businesses remain reluctant to hire. In this economic environment, an employment tax cut for small businesses has the potential to accelerate the pace of hiring. The Administration believes it is important to provide a short-term tax incentive to encourage small business hiring and support employment, and will work with Congress to design a provision that accomplishes these goals.
* Eliminating fees and increasing guarantees for small businesses that borrow through major SBA programs in 2010. The President called for the elimination of fees and an increase in guarantees for loans through the Small Business Administration, a measure that extends provisions in the Recovery Act through the end of 2010. In addition, the President called for continued Treasury efforts to use the TARP to support small business lending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-proposals-accelerate-job-growth-and-lay-foundation-robust

A bonus for people looking for work:

http://www.dol.gov/challenge/
Welcome to the Tools for America’s Job Seekers Challenge!

The voting and comment period has now ended. The DOL Challenge Team is currently reviewing votes and comments to ensure that they conform with our moderation policy. Thank you for your participation!

Finding a job in today's economy is hard work. The Employment and Training Administration wants to make sure job seekers have the best possible job search resources at their fingertips through the national network of One Stop Career Centers. As a complement to the full range of services available through One Stops, on-line tools are an important resource for job seekers as they research career options, identify available jobs, and find the best fit for their skills and experience.

In a fast-changing marketplace, it is difficult for the nation's almost 3,000 One Stop Career Centers and the over 20 million job seekers they serve to keep up with state of the art on-line job search and career advancement tools. Therefore, DOL challenges enterprising entrepreneurs and organizations to showcase their on-line solutions, and allow workforce system decision-makers and job seekers to explore, comment on, and recommend tools.

The Challenge will help the workforce investment system uncover the most effective on-line tools. At the conclusion of the Challenge, ETA will publicize the leading tools, in order to more quickly connect job seekers with job openings.

:patriot:

[tekisui]

74. Spending freezes and tax breaks? WTF?

I knew Obama wasn't a liberal, but I didn't think he was a conservative. Fuck this.

[smalll]

75. Well, I prefer tax breaks for businesses to tax rewards for procreating --

it might actually help all of us, including us personas non grata who never had babies.

[tranche]

76. A tax break for business. DU craps its collective pants.

Middle class people have businesses in this country. This is part of what I voted for. Of all things to be outraged at, we've got replies here shitting themselves over this?

[MadHound]

78. 'Scuse me, I have a small business of my own,

Yet even I'm intelligent to recognize that tax breaks, while perhaps personally beneficial, are the absolute worst way to stimulate an economy.

We are deep in debt, we are running a huge deficit, we have a large number of people out of work. We simply can't afford to fuck around, using the most inefficient way possible to help our economy while pissing away even more money.

We have absolutely got to get the most bang for our buck, help our country out as much as possible while saving as much money as possible. Therefore the only intelligent and logical option isn't tax breaks, but rather a massive spending program ala Keynes.

So while you may personally benefit from this tax break, you are getting it at the expense of all the rest of us. Gee, thanks for being such a selfish ass.

[PA Democrat]

81. Another small business owner here, and I agree.

Besides, the research shows that you get a mere 27 cents increase to GDP for every $1 of an accelerated depreciation tax break, which is what is being proposed. Sounds like a pretty bad investment to me, too!

[Cha]

83. They'll whine about anything even if it benefits

them. Small business owners will like this and if it doesn't stimulate the economy THAT much..it will help them and stimulate their Economy.

[PA Democrat]

85. 27 cents on the dollar. That how much of a stimulus you get for accelerated depreciation.

Translation: you give up $1 of tax revenues, to add $0.27 to GDP.

I'm sorry, but it's not whining to point out facts.

Fiscal Bang for the Buck- Multiplier Effect

One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending


Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Bus ...

[harun]

86. I would prefer he leave the trickle down BS to the pukes whose followers are stupid

enough to believe it helps them.