GOP's official report says tax cuts for the rich just don't do much of anything to help the economy.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, Obamacare hasn't costed tax payers a thing yet.

Are you aware of how businesses operate?

Second, the Bush tax cuts add twice as much to the deficit that the Obamacare taxes will decrease it. So, what are you talking about?

Obamacare will see an increase in the deficit for the simple reason that healthcare is a money pit. The more money you dump into it, the less that gets returned. Everything the tax increase collects and more will be consumed by Obamacare. So not only will you see higher taxes and become poorer, the deficit will still rise.

[Kidlicious]

Are you aware of how businesses operate?

I'm sure I don't know how you think they operate. So why don't you tell me.

Obamacare will see an increase in the deficit for the simple reason that healthcare is a money pit. The more money you dump into it, the less that gets returned. Everything the tax increase collects and more will be consumed by Obamacare. So not only will you see higher taxes and become poorer, the deficit will still rise.

An explaination is in order.

[Zevico]

And yet, here we are with the lowest taxes in the history of our nation and where's the growth?

Taxes are simply one aspect of governmental policy. The matter is best explained as such: imagine you are businessman. You may choose to invest in district A. District A has high taxes and onerous regulation. District B has low taxes and less regulation. District C has a mix. Now add any other number of factors into the mix. The point is, all else being equal, people will choose to invest in a low regulation, low tax zone. And they will use methods to avoid taxes by investing elsewhere. Now apply that analogy state-wide, nation-wide, worldwide and you understand how and why people move money from one country to another. Senator Kerry is just one example. So the answer to your question is that the issue of what your tax rates were historically is irrelevant: it is what they are now, relative to competing jurisdictions now, and how attractive it is to invest in a given jurisidiction now that matters. Tax cuts in the past helped because they made it relatively more attractive to invest in that place then at that time. The issue is one of competition between jurisdictions for business investors and migrants, much like businesses compete for customers.

[Fake Boris]

Hum, taxes have an effect on these other factors supposed to be equal...

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure I don't know how you think they operate. So why don't you tell me.

Businesses have to plan ahead. Passing a tax increase ensures that they will lay people off in advance.

An explaination is in order.

What, you think Obamacare is free?

[Dinner]

None of it has cost anything to taxpayers yet except for the endless Republican lawsuits all of which have failed.

[MRT144]

Taxes are only on profit. Why would a profitable business lat off people?

[Hauldren Collider]

Taxes are only on profit. Why would a profitable business lat off people?

You're not thinking about this correctly. It would be a disincentive against hiring new people--avoid expanding.

[Kidlicious]

Businesses have to plan ahead. Passing a tax increase ensures that they will lay people off in advance.

No it doesn't, anymore than the current low tax rate (9% for the most profitable corporations) encourages them to hire people.

What, you think Obamacare is free?

Are you refusing to explain how raising taxes means that government spending will increase?

[Kidlicious]

Taxes are simply one aspect of governmental policy. The matter is best explained as such: imagine you are businessman. You may choose to invest in district A. District A has high taxes and onerous regulation. District B has low taxes and less regulation. District C has a mix. Now add any other number of factors into the mix. The point is, all else being equal, people will choose to invest in a low regulation, low tax zone. And they will use methods to avoid taxes by investing elsewhere. Now apply that analogy state-wide, nation-wide, worldwide and you understand how and why people move money from one country to another. Senator Kerry is just one example. So the answer to your question is that the issue of what your tax rates were historically is irrelevant: it is what they are now, relative to competing jurisdictions now, and how attractive it is to invest in a given jurisidiction now that matters. Tax cuts in the past helped because they made it relatively more attractive to invest in that place then at that time. The issue is one of competition between jurisdictions for business investors and migrants, much like businesses compete for customers.

Where do you think people are going to move? Mexico? Turkey? Those countries don't have particularly high standards of living, btw.

[Ben Kenobi]

None of it has cost anything to taxpayers yet except for the endless Republican lawsuits all of which have failed.

That's two people who don't own or run their own business.

[giblets]

You're not thinking about this correctly. It would be a disincentive against hiring new people--avoid expanding.

If the new people bring in more revenue than they cost, then it makes sense to hire them whether taxes on profits are higher or not. But of course, Obamacare doesn't raise the corporate tax rate so I don't see how this is relevant.

[Ben Kenobi]

No it doesn't, anymore than the current low tax rate (9% for the most profitable corporations) encourages them to hire people.

Obamacare is a very regressive tax, hitting most businesses (save the ones Obama likes) with over 50 employees and working over 30 hours. It increases the costs of having them as an employee without any concamitant increase in productivity. Ergo - the correct response is to cut people's hours back to 30 or to fire the least productive. We are already seeing this in the latest jobs report - which showed a decrease in fulltime positions and a following increase in part time.

If it costs more to hire people and to keep people, businesses are going to impose hiring freezes, or (as what will probably happen), cut people's hours back so that they make less, and they aren't on the hook to pay for healthcare coverage.

Thus, as I predicted way back when - Obamacare because it increases employee costs - will actually result in people with fulltime jobs losing their jobs and their coverage, as there is now a massive competitive advantage to not having to pay Obamacare. So we will actually see fewer people covered than prior to Obamacare.

Are you refusing to explain how raising taxes means that government spending will increase?

Obamacare is a massive expansion in government services and expenses in the health care sector. Raising taxes will not offset the overall Obamacare mandate, ergo despite the tax raise in Obamacare, government spending will exceed the taxes.

Are you refusing to explain how raising taxes means that government spending will increase?

Do you believe Obamacare is free? Yes or no.

[Kidlicious]

That's two people who don't own or run their own business.

What business are you in?

[Ben Kenobi]

so I don't see how this is relevant.

I love this argument.

"Argument X just kicked my ass"
"Ergo I declare Argument X to be irrelevant! Case closed".