"Give me more customers, and I will hire more people. Give me a tax break, and I will take my wife to Aruba."

[mawilson 2,133]

The ones that you claimed get tax breaks and "a lot" of people are upset that the tax breaks might end for them. Remember? The "rich".

That's incorrect. Everyone got tax breaks, but the Democrats want to end them *only* for the top 1% - a symbolic gesture that would have virtually no effect on the deficit and could easily be avoided or substantially mitigated by most of its intended targets.

[rocks 494]

That's incorrect. Everyone got tax breaks, but the Democrats want to end them *only* for the top 1% - a symbolic gesture that would have virtually no effect on the deficit and could easily be avoided or substantially mitigated by most of its intended targets.

Are you going to address my point about Lockheed Martin/Nasa/Army National Guard?

[mawilson 2,133]

Are you going to address my point about Lockheed Martin/Nasa/Army National Guard?

No. You have no point to address. All you have are smoke and mirrors. No facts, no arguments to debate.

[rocks 494]

No. You have no point to address. All you have are smoke and mirrors. No facts, no arguments to debate.

No, that is you. I said the employers here are the government, and I'm right. You can't address anything because you're wrong and angry that "rich" people have to pay taxes.

[mawilson 2,133]

No, that is you. I said the employers here are the government, and I'm right. You can't address anything because you're wrong and angry that "rich" people have to pay taxes.

[james&olya 1,121]

Ignorance is such bliss from these bullshit articles that are posted from MotherJones/ThinkProgress, etc...

They don't have a damn clue as to what the hell they are even talking about. Not to mention the fact that you can still be a small business will millions in revenue and not have a huge profit margin either.

A LOT of Sole Proprieters that have a "revenue" of over a million or so a year, but their "profits" are just enough to take care of them, their family, and maybe the one or two workers they have. Taxing these people even higher could be devastating.

A LOT of small businesses are also corporations (as in INC, NOT LLC. Prior to the mid-90's LLC wasn't exactly an option and any other small business that's been around for 20+ years is actually incorporated. So cheering on higher corporate tax rates can be devastating as well.

Everyone thinks "corporation" and thinks evil without understanding that there's a difference between "Fortune 500" and your average "corporation."

Businesses are not taxed based on overall "revenues"! Even employee salaries and benefits come out BEFORE that small business has any tax calculated. Taxes only come out of the PROFITS. Profit is that amount of money left after all expenses including wages, salaries, employee benefits, rent, utilities, supplies, raw materials, consultant fees, depreciation of major equipment, etc... are subtracted. You apparently were unaware of this very basic but very important fact in this whole discussion. I would invite you to consider this new information a while and after you wrap your mind around it reconsider all these arguments and policies in light of this new understanding! That sole proprietor you refer to would obviously have 'profit' well below the $250,000 threshold that has been proposed for a modest increase in tax rate.

[james&olya 1,121]

Seriously, hiring a plumber or a baby sitter is hardly "job creation".

And why is that not job creation?

[rocks 494]

And why is that not job creation?

Waiting for the "all you have are smoke and mirrors" comment.

[mawilson 2,133]

Waiting for the "all you have are smoke and mirrors" comment.

No honey, unlike you, james&olya is actually capable of posting intelligent and meaningful content.

[rocks 494]

No honey, unlike you, james&olya is actually capable of posting intelligent and meaningful content.

Yeah, I'm just dumb and unemployable, right? Any other insults you have? You can't handle an argument to save your life.

[mawilson 2,133]

And why is that not job creation?

The usual definition of a job is "a paid position of regular employment." Hiring a plumber for a minor repair doesn't qualify as such.

A job can also mean an individual piece of work or task, but that's not the definition used when referring to the labor force.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah, I'm just dumb and unemployable, right? Any other insults you have? You can't handle an argument to save your life.

Please stop.

[rocks 494]

Please stop.

You said it. Maybe you should think before you type out abuse.

[james&olya 1,121]

The usual definition of a job is "a paid position of regular employment." Hiring a plumber for a minor repair doesn't qualify as such.

A job can also mean an individual piece of work or task, but that's not the definition used when referring to the labor force.

'Job' is properly defined also as referring to that major or minor plumbing repair. Some plumbers are hired long term, some for a few months or a few weeks, some for a single 'job'!

Hiring a baby-sitter is often an arrangement that spans many years. It is all employment. They are all 'jobs'.

I would work as a plumber or a baby-sitter if that was all that was available. I have worked similar jobs in my youth.