Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?

[speedingpullet]

No need to shoot the messenger!

I’m just pointing out that from a logistical point of view, $1billion isn’t all that much for a survey of an entire population.

One person’s ‘pork’ is another’s ‘stimulus’ – just depends on what you see as neccessary and what you see as bull$hit.

As for the Tax Return -not everyone pays taxes.

And, if you don’t run the census how are you ever going to know the proportion of ‘Illegals’ in the US?

[afx114]

Yes. From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php and http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18106

Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan’s first term, lower than Nixon’s, lower than Eisenhower’s, and lower than FDR’s when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.

[afx114]

Yes. From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php and http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18106

Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan’s first term, lower than Nixon’s, lower than Eisenhower’s, and lower than FDR’s when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.

[afx114]

Yes. From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php and http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18106

Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan’s first term, lower than Nixon’s, lower than Eisenhower’s, and lower than FDR’s when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.

[afx114]

Yes. From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php and http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18106

Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan’s first term, lower than Nixon’s, lower than Eisenhower’s, and lower than FDR’s when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.

[afx114]

Yes. From: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php and http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=18106

Obama is proposing a top rate lower than Reagan’s first term, lower than Nixon’s, lower than Eisenhower’s, and lower than FDR’s when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The 2010 proposed rate of 39.60% = socialism.
The 2002-2008 rates of 35.00% = capitalist nirvana.
The 39.6% rate of the 1990’s = socialism.
Everything else = down the memory hole.

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=flu]
Don’t disagree with the need? But again $1billion???
How about just taking attaching it to a tax return? I’m a subscriber to “no representation without taxation” 🙂 And yes, that means everyone has to file, even those that don’t need to pay. Also, do you count folks that are illegal? We have rules about citizenship/PR tests, about basic english skills, or is that not necessary anymore?

[/quote]

Well, I recall Democrats wanted to use statistic sampling for the census back in the 90s, which would have been much less expensive and more accurate. However, Republicans complained that it was undemocratic and insisted on “physically counting everyone”. In reality it was all about who gets counted etc. Dems wanted minorities, who tend to be less responsive to phone calls to be better represented, which surprise surprise strengthens their position. Repubs, on the other hand, fear over representation of “illegals” and which coincidentally is not their base constituants. Even accounting for massive Govt waste, I suspect that if the statistical approach was used the census would cost much less than 1 billion.

Slightly OT but this parallels the argument for broader voter registration vs. voter fraud argument between the two parties. Dems lean towards broader representation at the cost of a few fraud/mistakes. Repubs are weary of any fraud/mistake even if means more people who are eligible actually voted.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=flu]
Don’t disagree with the need? But again $1billion???
How about just taking attaching it to a tax return? I’m a subscriber to “no representation without taxation” 🙂 And yes, that means everyone has to file, even those that don’t need to pay. Also, do you count folks that are illegal? We have rules about citizenship/PR tests, about basic english skills, or is that not necessary anymore?

[/quote]

Well, I recall Democrats wanted to use statistic sampling for the census back in the 90s, which would have been much less expensive and more accurate. However, Republicans complained that it was undemocratic and insisted on “physically counting everyone”. In reality it was all about who gets counted etc. Dems wanted minorities, who tend to be less responsive to phone calls to be better represented, which surprise surprise strengthens their position. Repubs, on the other hand, fear over representation of “illegals” and which coincidentally is not their base constituants. Even accounting for massive Govt waste, I suspect that if the statistical approach was used the census would cost much less than 1 billion.

Slightly OT but this parallels the argument for broader voter registration vs. voter fraud argument between the two parties. Dems lean towards broader representation at the cost of a few fraud/mistakes. Repubs are weary of any fraud/mistake even if means more people who are eligible actually voted.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=flu]
Don’t disagree with the need? But again $1billion???
How about just taking attaching it to a tax return? I’m a subscriber to “no representation without taxation” 🙂 And yes, that means everyone has to file, even those that don’t need to pay. Also, do you count folks that are illegal? We have rules about citizenship/PR tests, about basic english skills, or is that not necessary anymore?

[/quote]

Well, I recall Democrats wanted to use statistic sampling for the census back in the 90s, which would have been much less expensive and more accurate. However, Republicans complained that it was undemocratic and insisted on “physically counting everyone”. In reality it was all about who gets counted etc. Dems wanted minorities, who tend to be less responsive to phone calls to be better represented, which surprise surprise strengthens their position. Repubs, on the other hand, fear over representation of “illegals” and which coincidentally is not their base constituants. Even accounting for massive Govt waste, I suspect that if the statistical approach was used the census would cost much less than 1 billion.

Slightly OT but this parallels the argument for broader voter registration vs. voter fraud argument between the two parties. Dems lean towards broader representation at the cost of a few fraud/mistakes. Repubs are weary of any fraud/mistake even if means more people who are eligible actually voted.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=flu]
Don’t disagree with the need? But again $1billion???
How about just taking attaching it to a tax return? I’m a subscriber to “no representation without taxation” 🙂 And yes, that means everyone has to file, even those that don’t need to pay. Also, do you count folks that are illegal? We have rules about citizenship/PR tests, about basic english skills, or is that not necessary anymore?

[/quote]

Well, I recall Democrats wanted to use statistic sampling for the census back in the 90s, which would have been much less expensive and more accurate. However, Republicans complained that it was undemocratic and insisted on “physically counting everyone”. In reality it was all about who gets counted etc. Dems wanted minorities, who tend to be less responsive to phone calls to be better represented, which surprise surprise strengthens their position. Repubs, on the other hand, fear over representation of “illegals” and which coincidentally is not their base constituants. Even accounting for massive Govt waste, I suspect that if the statistical approach was used the census would cost much less than 1 billion.

Slightly OT but this parallels the argument for broader voter registration vs. voter fraud argument between the two parties. Dems lean towards broader representation at the cost of a few fraud/mistakes. Repubs are weary of any fraud/mistake even if means more people who are eligible actually voted.

MadeInTaiwan

[MadeInTaiwan]

[quote=flu]
Don’t disagree with the need? But again $1billion???
How about just taking attaching it to a tax return? I’m a subscriber to “no representation without taxation” 🙂 And yes, that means everyone has to file, even those that don’t need to pay. Also, do you count folks that are illegal? We have rules about citizenship/PR tests, about basic english skills, or is that not necessary anymore?

[/quote]

Well, I recall Democrats wanted to use statistic sampling for the census back in the 90s, which would have been much less expensive and more accurate. However, Republicans complained that it was undemocratic and insisted on “physically counting everyone”. In reality it was all about who gets counted etc. Dems wanted minorities, who tend to be less responsive to phone calls to be better represented, which surprise surprise strengthens their position. Repubs, on the other hand, fear over representation of “illegals” and which coincidentally is not their base constituants. Even accounting for massive Govt waste, I suspect that if the statistical approach was used the census would cost much less than 1 billion.

Slightly OT but this parallels the argument for broader voter registration vs. voter fraud argument between the two parties. Dems lean towards broader representation at the cost of a few fraud/mistakes. Repubs are weary of any fraud/mistake even if means more people who are eligible actually voted.

MadeInTaiwan

[dbapig]

imho
I have a comment for those business owners who oppose higher tax but don’t want to pay ‘LIVING’ wage to their workers. Well, if you don’t pay living wage to the workers, they can’t afford health insurance. And if they can’t afford health insurance, they will have to rely on the govt for health care. Which leads to higher expenditure by the govt.

Does anyone find it ironic that some business owners oppose higher tax and yet don’t pay living wage?

Make up your mind will ya? 🙂

I do agree govt wastes $ but you can’t oppose higher tax at all cost all the time.

[dbapig]

imho
I have a comment for those business owners who oppose higher tax but don’t want to pay ‘LIVING’ wage to their workers. Well, if you don’t pay living wage to the workers, they can’t afford health insurance. And if they can’t afford health insurance, they will have to rely on the govt for health care. Which leads to higher expenditure by the govt.

Does anyone find it ironic that some business owners oppose higher tax and yet don’t pay living wage?

Make up your mind will ya? 🙂

I do agree govt wastes $ but you can’t oppose higher tax at all cost all the time.

[dbapig]

imho
I have a comment for those business owners who oppose higher tax but don’t want to pay ‘LIVING’ wage to their workers. Well, if you don’t pay living wage to the workers, they can’t afford health insurance. And if they can’t afford health insurance, they will have to rely on the govt for health care. Which leads to higher expenditure by the govt.

Does anyone find it ironic that some business owners oppose higher tax and yet don’t pay living wage?

Make up your mind will ya? 🙂

I do agree govt wastes $ but you can’t oppose higher tax at all cost all the time.

[dbapig]

imho
I have a comment for those business owners who oppose higher tax but don’t want to pay ‘LIVING’ wage to their workers. Well, if you don’t pay living wage to the workers, they can’t afford health insurance. And if they can’t afford health insurance, they will have to rely on the govt for health care. Which leads to higher expenditure by the govt.

Does anyone find it ironic that some business owners oppose higher tax and yet don’t pay living wage?

Make up your mind will ya? 🙂

I do agree govt wastes $ but you can’t oppose higher tax at all cost all the time.

[Author]

Posts