Question for the economic aces
 

I need some help understanding something.

Watching and listening to Barack Obama at a campaign rally this morning, he
again outlined his economic plan to stimulate the economy.

Part of his proposal is the elimination of capital gains taxes on small
businesses so, as he puts it, they can hire more employees and expand.

I don't get it.

My simple understanding of capital gains taxes is that it applies to an
increase in value of something you bought or invested in, like a house,
stocks, or, in the case of a small business, it's value of when it started
and that when you sell it.

So, how does the elimination of capital gains taxes on a small business
allow it to grow and hire more employees?
For the owner of a small business, it seems to me the only time there would
be a benefit is if he/she decided to sell it.
If they are continuing operations and trying to expand, there's no capital
gains tax to be paid anyway.

Seems to me that holding down *Income* taxes on small businesses would help
provide the money for further investment and growth of the company. What
does the elimination of capital gains taxes do for the future of the
company, other than eliminate taxes owed when the small business owner sells
out.

Am I wrong or is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good
but has virtually no meat to it?


Eisboch

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
I need some help understanding something.

Watching and listening to Barack Obama at a campaign rally this morning, he
again outlined his economic plan to stimulate the economy.

Part of his proposal is the elimination of capital gains taxes on small
businesses so, as he puts it, they can hire more employees and expand.

I don't get it.

My simple understanding of capital gains taxes is that it applies to an
increase in value of something you bought or invested in, like a house,
stocks, or, in the case of a small business, it's value of when it started
and that when you sell it.

So, how does the elimination of capital gains taxes on a small business
allow it to grow and hire more employees?
For the owner of a small business, it seems to me the only time there would
be a benefit is if he/she decided to sell it.
If they are continuing operations and trying to expand, there's no capital
gains tax to be paid anyway.

Seems to me that holding down *Income* taxes on small businesses would help
provide the money for further investment and growth of the company. What
does the elimination of capital gains taxes do for the future of the
company, other than eliminate taxes owed when the small business owner sells
out.

Am I wrong or is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good
but has virtually no meat to it?


Eisboch



Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans at
face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will happen
after the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has it all
figured out. "is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds
good but has virtually no meat to it?"

Question for the economic aces
 

"jim" wrote in message
...


Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans at
face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will happen after
the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has it all figured out.
"is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good but has
virtually no meat to it?"


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the whole
election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A couple of
times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway and
actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested into the
company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing business and the
better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had the
business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because at that
time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch

Question for the economic aces
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


So, how does the elimination of capital gains taxes on a small business
allow it to grow and hire more employees?

The plan is to eliminate capital gains on *investments* in small and
start-up businesses.

http://obama.3cdn.net/d14eb1b3649c4d6745_0evzmv02w.pdf

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
"jim" wrote in message
...

Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans at
face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will happen after
the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has it all figured out.
"is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good but has
virtually no meat to it?"


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the whole
election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A couple of
times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway and
actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested into the
company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing business and the
better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had the
business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because at that
time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch


Finance is only one facet of the Obama scam. Rev. Wright has planted a
seed that is growing inside the mind of Obama. That should scare the
Bjezzes out of the average American.

Question for the economic aces
 

wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


So, how does the elimination of capital gains taxes on a small business
allow it to grow and hire more employees?

The plan is to eliminate capital gains on *investments* in small and
start-up businesses.

http://obama.3cdn.net/d14eb1b3649c4d6745_0evzmv02w.pdf


That makes sense.

What Obama says doesn't. To quote:

"I will eliminate the Capital Gains Tax on small businesses ..."

Very misleading statement that stirs up the crowds.

Eisboch

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


So, how does the elimination of capital gains taxes on a small business
allow it to grow and hire more employees?
The plan is to eliminate capital gains on *investments* in small and
start-up businesses.

http://obama.3cdn.net/d14eb1b3649c4d6745_0evzmv02w.pdf


That makes sense.

What Obama says doesn't. To quote:

"I will eliminate the Capital Gains Tax on small businesses ..."

Very misleading statement that stirs up the crowds.

Eisboch


Lawyers tend to be very good at misleading us ordinary folk.

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
"jim" wrote in message
...

Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans at
face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will happen after
the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has it all figured out.
"is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good but has
virtually no meat to it?"


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the whole
election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A couple of
times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway and
actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested into the
company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing business and the
better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had the
business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because at that
time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch


What worries me more is the absolute systematic undermining of the vote
this time around. ACORN flooded swing states with so many fake
applications, they can never sort them out. Now the US Justice dept,
with three top officials who have recently donated to the candidate's
campaign has decided not to investigate the fraud, or at least put folks
into the suspect polling places to keep things in line. This decision
was made just weeks after meeting with top DNC officials in Washington.
At the same time they are starting new investigations into Roberto
Gonzalez for firing folks for not doing their job back then?? It is all
and out fraud and we the American people will be the victims. After the
candidate gets elected, his majority in congress will pass laws like
the "fairness doctrine" (censorship doctrine) which will take away any
voice the opposition has. Already the VP candidate is censoring and
eliminating any news orgs that dares ask tough questions, in lieu of
half hour infomercials. The campaign finances have been taking millions
of untraceable and unverified donations from all over the world and had
addressed this by eliminating any parts of the process that would bring
that into the open. It's a scam of the highest degree. Fear for
Democracy. We are being sold out to which ever country can provide the
most money to the campaign... Any guesses, maybe France, Russia, North
Korea and any other country that has an interest in us electing a weak
president..

Question for the economic aces
 

SmallBoats.com wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"jim" wrote in message
...

Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans
at face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will
happen after the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has
it all figured out. "is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that
sounds good but has virtually no meat to it?"


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the whole
election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A
couple of times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway
and actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested
into the company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing
business and the better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had
the business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because
at that time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch

What worries me more is the absolute systematic undermining of the vote
this time around. ACORN flooded swing states with so many fake
applications, they can never sort them out. Now the US Justice dept,
with three top officials who have recently donated to the candidate's
campaign has decided not to investigate the fraud, or at least put folks
into the suspect polling places to keep things in line. This decision
was made just weeks after meeting with top DNC officials in Washington.
At the same time they are starting new investigations into Roberto
Gonzalez for firing folks for not doing their job back then?? It is all
and out fraud and we the American people will be the victims. After the
candidate gets elected, his majority in congress will pass laws like
the "fairness doctrine" (censorship doctrine) which will take away any
voice the opposition has. Already the VP candidate is censoring and
eliminating any news orgs that dares ask tough questions, in lieu of
half hour infomercials. The campaign finances have been taking millions
of untraceable and unverified donations from all over the world and had
addressed this by eliminating any parts of the process that would bring
that into the open. It's a scam of the highest degree. Fear for
Democracy. We are being sold out to which ever country can provide the
most money to the campaign... Any guesses, maybe France, Russia, North
Korea and any other country that has an interest in us electing a weak
president..


Drool on, Justwaitascotty.

Eisboch...it's not relief on capital gains, it's tax relief on the
investments made in small business. Maybe Obama didn't explain it
properly in the tv appearance you saw. He has explained it in detail
several times.

Question for the economic aces
 

Boater wrote:
SmallBoats.com wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"jim" wrote in message
...

Nobody likes a smart ass. You are supposed to take all of the plans
at face value and consiser them to be a reflection of what will
happen after the planner is elected. Let me quote some one that has
it all figured out. "is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk
that sounds good but has virtually no meat to it?"


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the whole
election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A
couple of times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway
and actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested
into the company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing
business and the better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had
the business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because
at that time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch

What worries me more is the absolute systematic undermining of the
vote this time around. ACORN flooded swing states with so many fake
applications, they can never sort them out. Now the US Justice dept,
with three top officials who have recently donated to the candidate's
campaign has decided not to investigate the fraud, or at least put
folks into the suspect polling places to keep things in line. This
decision was made just weeks after meeting with top DNC officials in
Washington. At the same time they are starting new investigations into
Roberto Gonzalez for firing folks for not doing their job back then??
It is all and out fraud and we the American people will be the
victims. After the candidate gets elected, his majority in congress
will pass laws like the "fairness doctrine" (censorship doctrine)
which will take away any voice the opposition has. Already the VP
candidate is censoring and eliminating any news orgs that dares ask
tough questions, in lieu of half hour infomercials. The campaign
finances have been taking millions of untraceable and unverified
donations from all over the world and had addressed this by
eliminating any parts of the process that would bring that into the
open. It's a scam of the highest degree. Fear for Democracy. We are
being sold out to which ever country can provide the most money to
the campaign... Any guesses, maybe France, Russia, North Korea and
any other country that has an interest in us electing a weak president..


Drool on, Justwaitascotty.

Eisboch...it's not relief on capital gains, it's tax relief on the
investments made in small business. Maybe Obama didn't explain it
properly in the tv appearance you saw. He has explained it in detail
several times.

Why can't Obama explain it properly all of the time?

Question for the economic aces
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
SmallBoats.com wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


If I am correct, then we are witnessing the biggest scam of the
whole election process.

As you know, I founded and operated a business for many years. A
couple of times I nearly went belly-up due to income taxes due.
The income tax structure basically penalizes you for making headway
and actually start producing a profit which can then be re-invested
into the company. Income taxes basically became a cost of doing
business and the better you did, the more you paid.

I didn't pay a cent in "Capital Gains" taxes in all the years I had
the business. I paid through the nose when I sold it though because
at that time the rate was something like 35 percent.

Eisboch


president..


Drool on, Justwaitascotty.

Eisboch...it's not relief on capital gains, it's tax relief on the
investments made in small business. Maybe Obama didn't explain it
properly in the tv appearance you saw. He has explained it in detail
several times.

Why can't Obama explain it properly all of the time?


I'll be sure to ask him for you when I see him.

Question for the economic aces
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Eisboch...it's not relief on capital gains, it's tax relief on the
investments made in small business. Maybe Obama didn't explain it properly
in the tv appearance you saw. He has explained it in detail several times.


You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others because he
didn't explain it.

But here's the irony.

Financial investors in a small business are likely to be well off
individuals, venture capitalists or larger companies looking for investment
opportunities that also have significant tax advantages. Obama is
proposing just that, in apparent contradiction to his "tax the rich" and
"share the wealth" rhetoric.

It would be much, much better to minimize regular income taxes on business
if you want to stimulate the economy. Not all small businesses are
desirable investment candidates. Mine wasn't. No one could understand
what we built and when I tried to explain their eyes just glazed over.

Eisboch

Eisboch
Isn't that totally contrary to his

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch...it's not relief on capital gains, it's tax relief on the
investments made in small business. Maybe Obama didn't explain it properly
in the tv appearance you saw. He has explained it in detail several times.


You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others because he
didn't explain it.

But here's the irony.

Financial investors in a small business are likely to be well off
individuals, venture capitalists or larger companies looking for investment
opportunities that also have significant tax advantages. Obama is
proposing just that, in apparent contradiction to his "tax the rich" and
"share the wealth" rhetoric.

It would be much, much better to minimize regular income taxes on business
if you want to stimulate the economy. Not all small businesses are
desirable investment candidates. Mine wasn't. No one could understand
what we built and when I tried to explain their eyes just glazed over.

Eisboch

Eisboch
Isn't that totally contrary to his




My guess is that Obama is targeting the existing or prospective
proprietors who want to invest in their own existing or prospective
businesses.

Here's a giggle for you. Way back when, when I worked for a financial PR
firm in Detroit, one of our clients was an incredibly hard working and
successful family who owned a multistate mortgage banking business and a
few commercial development companies. A large Michigan bank was on the
verge of default. The family made a deal with the FDIC to take the bank
over. This was all done over a weekend. The bank opened Monday under the
ownership of the investor family.

When I talked to the client about this a couple of weeks later, and
commented how it was terrific to have about $100 million in liquid
assets sitting around (that's what the buy in price was), he said, with
a smile..."it's just a small business investment."

A year later, they sold off the mortgage banking business to Citicorp.
Their shares were trading OTC at under $5 and they got $28 a share from
Citicorp.

Of course, this was in the day of honest, legitimate businessmen running
financial institutions...

Question for the economic aces
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...



My guess is that Obama is targeting the existing or prospective
proprietors who want to invest in their own existing or prospective
businesses.



The average small business owner/entreupeour isn't rich with money to
invest. He/she starts a business in hopes of many someday becoming
successful and maybe even rich.

Most that I know started out by taking loans against their houses, or in my
case, simply growing when you could if you had a decent year.

Eisboch

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...


My guess is that Obama is targeting the existing or prospective
proprietors who want to invest in their own existing or prospective
businesses.



The average small business owner/entreupeour isn't rich with money to
invest. He/she starts a business in hopes of many someday becoming
successful and maybe even rich.

Most that I know started out by taking loans against their houses, or in my
case, simply growing when you could if you had a decent year.

Eisboch



What you are saying is not in conflict with what I said. Getting a pass
on capital gains taxes on money you invest in your own business is a
plus, no matter what the amounts involved.

Question for the economic aces
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Am I wrong or is this just a bunch of economic doubletalk that sounds good
but has virtually no meat to it?

I know - I saw that too. It's a little bit confusing how he phrased
it.

His idea is to remove capital gains liabilities for small business.
That's what he's proposed anyway.

The problem is in how "small business" is being defined. He and/or
his advisors have not defined exactly what he means by "small
business". As far as I know, the only definition is if the small
business owner makes over $250K/yr in which case his "wealth" will be
redistributed.

Which is an economic disincentive when you think about it. The person
who makes $249K per year isn't peanized for success, the person making
$250,000.01 is. What I don't understand is that his main economic
guy, Austan Goolsbee, is a fairly rightish free market guy and he's
the one proposing all this stuff.

He's a brainy guy - but I honestly don't think he's thought this stuff
through.

Question for the economic aces
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It would be much, much better to minimize regular income taxes on business
if you want to stimulate the economy. Not all small businesses are
desirable investment candidates. Mine wasn't. No one could understand
what we built and when I tried to explain their eyes just glazed over.

Flat tax - the only answer.

10%.

Question for the economic aces
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others because he
didn't explain it.

That's a large part of the problem with Obama's proposal - it's not so
much what he says as what he doesn't say. It's like a game of Clue or
playing with Newtonian mathematics on a Quantum level. :)

Obama says only people making more than $250K will have their taxes
raised, but that doesn’t mean that everyone making less than that will
have their taxes cut. There’s a middle segment, between $150K and
$200K for individuals and $200K and $250K for families (as I
understand it and my understanding is by no means complete because of
the ambiguities in how he states it), whose taxes will effectively
stay the same.

It's pretty obvious that Obama throws that $250K figure around
assuming that Joe Sixpack will assume that’s the threshold for tax
cuts. It isn’t. It’s the threshold for tax hikes, and only for
families, not individuals. Or so I deduce.

He's being very slippery - amost out Clintoning Clinton. :)

There is only one thing that we can all say for absolute sure -
capital gains for folks making over $250K per year will go up -
significantly under the Obama plan.

Question for the economic aces
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others because he
didn't explain it.

That's a large part of the problem with Obama's proposal - it's not so
much what he says as what he doesn't say. It's like a game of Clue or
playing with Newtonian mathematics on a Quantum level. :)

Obama says only people making more than $250K will have their taxes
raised, but that doesn't mean that everyone making less than that will
have their taxes cut. There's a middle segment, between $150K and
$200K for individuals and $200K and $250K for families (as I
understand it and my understanding is by no means complete because of
the ambiguities in how he states it), whose taxes will effectively
stay the same.

It's pretty obvious that Obama throws that $250K figure around
assuming that Joe Sixpack will assume that's the threshold for tax
cuts. It isn't. It's the threshold for tax hikes, and only for
families, not individuals. Or so I deduce.

He's being very slippery - amost out Clintoning Clinton. :)

There is only one thing that we can all say for absolute sure -
capital gains for folks making over $250K per year will go up -
significantly under the Obama plan.

Every time I've heard the $250K *threshold* bandied about it applies to
*workers*. What about retired?

Question for the economic aces
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others because he
didn't explain it.
That's a large part of the problem with Obama's proposal - it's not so
much what he says as what he doesn't say. It's like a game of Clue or
playing with Newtonian mathematics on a Quantum level. :)

Obama says only people making more than $250K will have their taxes
raised, but that doesn't mean that everyone making less than that will
have their taxes cut. There's a middle segment, between $150K and
$200K for individuals and $200K and $250K for families (as I
understand it and my understanding is by no means complete because of
the ambiguities in how he states it), whose taxes will effectively
stay the same.

It's pretty obvious that Obama throws that $250K figure around
assuming that Joe Sixpack will assume that's the threshold for tax
cuts. It isn't. It's the threshold for tax hikes, and only for
families, not individuals. Or so I deduce.

He's being very slippery - amost out Clintoning Clinton. :)

There is only one thing that we can all say for absolute sure -
capital gains for folks making over $250K per year will go up -
significantly under the Obama plan.

Every time I've heard the $250K *threshold* bandied about it applies to
*workers*. What about retired?

Going back to Tom's reference to Obama being slicker than Slick Willie.
You haven't heard Obama state that it is income, dividends or interest.
It most likely will be all of the above combined.

Just remember to die in 2010 when there is no federal death tax.

Question for the economic aces
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:52:41 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It would be much, much better to minimize regular income taxes on business
if you want to stimulate the economy. Not all small businesses are
desirable investment candidates. Mine wasn't. No one could understand
what we built and when I tried to explain their eyes just glazed over.

Flat tax - the only answer.

10%.

A National sales tax is also an answer. The more you buy, the more
you pay.

With a flat tax folks can still keep income undeclared and not subject
to tax (e.g. drug dealers). Those same folks will have to pay tax
when they make purchases.

Makes to much sense to ensure it will never be enacted.

Question for the economic aces
 

BAR wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

You're right. I misunderstood it, as I am sure did many others
because he
didn't explain it.
That's a large part of the problem with Obama's proposal - it's not so
much what he says as what he doesn't say. It's like a game of Clue or
playing with Newtonian mathematics on a Quantum level. :)

Obama says only people making more than $250K will have their taxes
raised, but that doesn't mean that everyone making less than that will
have their taxes cut. There's a middle segment, between $150K and
$200K for individuals and $200K and $250K for families (as I
understand it and my understanding is by no means complete because of
the ambiguities in how he states it), whose taxes will effectively
stay the same.

It's pretty obvious that Obama throws that $250K figure around
assuming that Joe Sixpack will assume that's the threshold for tax
cuts. It isn't. It's the threshold for tax hikes, and only for
families, not individuals. Or so I deduce.

He's being very slippery - amost out Clintoning Clinton. :)

There is only one thing that we can all say for absolute sure -
capital gains for folks making over $250K per year will go up -
significantly under the Obama plan.

Every time I've heard the $250K *threshold* bandied about it applies
to *workers*. What about retired?

Going back to Tom's reference to Obama being slicker than Slick Willie.
You haven't heard Obama state that it is income, dividends or interest.
It most likely will be all of the above combined.

Just remember to die in 2010 when there is no federal death tax.


If you promise to do just that, I'll send a wilted flower to your funeral.

Question for the economic aces
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:19:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It would be much, much better to minimize regular income taxes on business
if you want to stimulate the economy. Not all small businesses are
desirable investment candidates. Mine wasn't. No one could understand
what we built and when I tried to explain their eyes just glazed over.

Flat tax - the only answer.

10%.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. And a flat
tax will never, ever pass! Government these days is control. And taxation
is the ultimate control. You want to dissuade an action, raise taxes on
that action. Want to help a donation giver, lower taxes for that segment.

Question for the economic aces
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...


My guess is that Obama is targeting the existing or prospective
proprietors who want to invest in their own existing or prospective
businesses.



The average small business owner/entreupeour isn't rich with money to
invest. He/she starts a business in hopes of many someday becoming
successful and maybe even rich.

Most that I know started out by taking loans against their houses, or in my
case, simply growing when you could if you had a decent year.

Eisboch



That's how I did it. Hopefully the Fed will save me a few bucks tomorrow...

Question for the economic aces
 

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...


My guess is that Obama is targeting the existing or prospective
proprietors who want to invest in their own existing or prospective
businesses.



The average small business owner/entreupeour isn't rich with money to
invest. He/she starts a business in hopes of many someday becoming
successful and maybe even rich.

Most that I know started out by taking loans against their houses, or
in my case, simply growing when you could if you had a decent year.

Eisboch


What you are saying is not in conflict with what I said. Getting a pass
on capital gains taxes on money you invest in your own business is a
plus, no matter what the amounts involved.

You have no idea what you are talking about (again). You DO know the
difference between capital gains and profits, right? Ever heard of a
Subchapter S Corp? Look it up.