Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
pajamasmedia.com
Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#2I was wondering about this. When I first heard his tax plan I didn't think much one way or another. Then I thought, wait! I'm trying to raise money from the super rich!
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#3Another point on the health care bit. At present, medicare and medicaid spend a combined > $600 billion and rising at 6% annually. In their market (medical insurance) they are the largest players. Absolutely. As a result, other insurance companies structure their plans within those offered by these two entities. They have to, if they want to offer supplementary services to these large markets and have any influence with hospitals (hospitals and doctors do not want to work with multiple completely different systems of paperwork unless they have to).
If we want real innovation in the health care sector, the personal tax deduction will help but ultimately, we need to get rid of these two bloated freaks. Too bad that that is one sacred cow that no politician is going to touch with a 9 foot stick.
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#4I tried in vain to find a valid argument in this article. Instead, it was nearly wall-to-wall non sequiturs and faulty generalizations.
There's some arm waving about how increasing the income tax on high wage earners will act as a disincentive to angel investors. Am I misunderstanding tax law, or aren't capital gains (e.g., from startup investments) separate from income for tax purposes?
Then, when Obama's "socialized medicine" plan would actually help, the author rails against it because it has 'failed everywhere it's been tried.' (Except where it has succeeded. And also, the dismal failures mentioned are anecdotal scaremongering.) The solution is held out in front of the author and he rejects it on unrelated, partisan grounds!
Maybe he makes sense to himself, but his oversimplifications haven't adequately made the case for the article title or his two supporting gripes.
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#5I was wondering about this. When I first heard his tax plan I didn't think much one way or another. Then I thought, wait! I'm trying to raise money from the super rich!
Usual republican fearmongering. as Marc Cuban said "No self respected businessman/ entrepenour wakes up a day and says I am not going to build a business and try to make millions b/c my marginal tax rate is %35 instead of %25".
If that extra money taxed gets used for something useful such as building High Speed Rail in California, or jump-starting alternative fuels technology, then it is a win win situation for the economy and for people.
If that extra tax money gets spend in useless wars such as the one in Iraq, that is plain economic destruction.
That's why picking the right president is so important, and makes the huge difference between economic prosperity, or economic destruction.
While I may say, that Bush's tax cut, and flood of money (with low interest rates), left the rich flush with money, who invested in short-sighted and useless economic destructive market. For every house that is in foreclosure, every house/street/building that is left half build, that is all economic loss to all.
While it is a good idea to let markets decide private investments in the long run, sometimes it is necessary for the government to step in, and invest in things that are not profitable in the short term, but have huge positive economic impact in the long run. And if pinching some money away from the private market is necessary, so be it.
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#6This is simply ridiculous. The author clearly hasn't filled out IRS Form 1120S lately, or any other tax form that actually might be applicable to entrepreneurs. Furthermore, I don't really care if angel investors and venture capitalists have to pay more taxes on their successful investments. There's a difference between investing and inventing.
In regard to health care, adding more tax incentives (read loopholes), thereby increasing the complexity of the laws, and making the market for health insurance "more competitive," when the lack of competition is not the problem in the first place, will make matters far worse. Health care is not a commodity that lends itself to a market. It's a human right, which lends itself far better to [competent] government.
A while back I wrote about some of these issues here:
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#7Another point on the health care bit. At present, medicare and medicaid spend a combined > $600 billion and rising at 6% annually. In their market (medical insurance) they are the largest players. Absolutely. As a result, other insurance companies structure their plans within those offered by these two entities. They have to, if they want to offer supplementary services to these large markets and have any influence w…
If your $600bn figure is correct...
US incomplete health care is $600bn/305m people = $2,000 per person.
UK national health service is $120bn/60m people = $2,000 per person.
The US needs a really hard look at why it is getting such a bad deal. You already have socialised medicine (anyone can go to the ER and it gets amortised over private insurance patients - essentially taxing the rich) but that cost is on top of the $2k/person you pay for an inferior national program!
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#8Anyone truly believe that the change from "less taxes for people making This is the same "as long as you make the rich richer they'll spill some on everybody else" thinking that, frankly, has no actual merit in fact (Before you downmod me on this, lookup the some actual data!)
This guy should read a biography on Henry Ford.
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#9I tried in vain to find a valid argument in this article. Instead, it was nearly wall-to-wall non sequiturs and faulty generalizations. There's some arm waving about how increasing the income tax on high wage earners will act as a disincentive to angel investors. Am I misunderstanding tax law, or aren't capital gains (e.g., from startup investments) separate from income for tax purposes? Then, when Obama's "socialize…
When he says Obama's plan is "putting the cart before the horse" I think he means that it's silly to tax us on the money we earn that we'll eventually invest with and not on the money we invest ONCE we're rich.
I'm not rich, but let's assume I'm on track to become so by way of my ever increasing income. Obama would take more of the income I'm using to build my fortune, leaving me less to invest later on. Lower income taxes would give me more to play with later on, and since I'll already be quite well off by then, paying tax on my capital gains doesn't really bother me.
Personally I don't think this is a great argument and I am in support of Obama's plan, but I do see its point. It's a very long-term argument, and I think that if far smaller investors can use the capital gains 0% tax (such as entrepreneurs who self-fund) then it's an amazing idea. But if small self-funding entrepreneurs cannot take advantage of the 0% tax on capital gains in their own businesses, I'd probably agree with the author as it serves only to unfairly placate the rich.
Re: Obama Tax Plan a Frontal Assault on Entrepreneurs
#10Another point on the health care bit. At present, medicare and medicaid spend a combined > $600 billion and rising at 6% annually. In their market (medical insurance) they are the largest players. Absolutely. As a result, other insurance companies structure their plans within those offered by these two entities. They have to, if they want to offer supplementary services to these large markets and have any influence w…
If your $600bn figure is correct... US incomplete health care is $600bn/305m people = $2,000 per person. UK national health service is $120bn/60m people = $2,000 per person. The US needs a really hard look at why it is getting such a bad deal. You already have socialised medicine (anyone can go to the ER and it gets amortised over private insurance patients - essentially taxing the rich) but that cost is on top of th…
Actually, everyone in the US is covered, there are just different plans. The gap is wrt insurance. The uninsured have "free" (read taxpayer supported) options. (Yes, there are treatments that aren't covered in those options, just as there are in every system, including those in "universal healthcare" systems.)
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?