Jenai Goss | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Jenai Goss 
Member since Aug 17, 2012

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Fact check: Yes, Obama's ad on Romney tax plan correct

The claim Bush's 'tax cuts' can be blamed has no support. The Bush tax cuts (under Bush, not Obama - who failed to achieve the same effect due to both overspending and the recession) caused the rich to pay *more* in taxes, according to both CBO, Treasury, and IRS numbers. [Whether one is speaking about just income taxes, total taxes, or more importantly, the *total percent of total tax revenue in proportion to their income percentage*]. The growth rate in income of the lowest income earners even *doubled*. Overall Revenue and GDP also increased, in part due to the stimulation provided by the tax cuts to all, pre-recession.
[Most importantly, Bush increased the *growth rate* of GDP from .3% pre-2001 to 2.5% in 2002. While he loses massive points for outspending his revenue, GDP was the highest it had been in 20 years by 2004. His initial economic growth and recovery act, which cut taxes among other things, ended a recession - if only our current administration took some pointers].

If anyone complains about the 'fair share' the rich pay, they should be solely in the camp of Cush, who increased total tax revenue (including capital gains) that the top 1% and top 5% paid to the government both in terms of percent compared to income (their 'share') as well as total revenue.

Considering the Bush tax were a rousing success - one cannot point to the numbers under the recession and President Obama's administration and claim that it is the 'tax cuts' fault [If anything, overspending by first the Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration which outpaced the increase in Federasl Revenues is at fault]. Nor can the claim that all economic problems are related to the tax cuts be made, or the further claim that removing the tax cuts would automatically help.

Elwood: Most businesses are not the giant coorporations you imagine - they are small. In fact, it takes most businesses three years even to earn a profit [if they are sucessful at all]. Romney is the exception, not the rule, as the average %paid by the top 1% is much higher in totla taxes. You are talking about a very *few* wealthy people, the .01% (27million bracket, aka Romney) maybe 30,000 people in the whole US, who are so wealthy that they no longer need to build more companies since the money just keeps flooding in, and have nothing left to do with the money but invest [which stimulates other businesses] or spend [which stimulates other businesses] or store it in a vault somewhere. That an opressed immigrant could come to america with $2 in his pocket and end up a billionaire used to be called 'the american dream', as everyone has the same opportunity. [Although that has changed a little over time, most notably with laws trying to 'make' everyone equal, rather than aknowledging we all are, and granting special treatment to some over others].

Making financial decisions [or comparisons] based on one tenth of one tenth of one percent of the entire 300 million people in America is absurd! It's a statistical outlier - as close to irrelevance as you can get. (For more irrelevance, consider that capital gains is usually only 3% of federal revenue, wheras, income tax is 82% of all federal revenue. So it stands to reason that an uptick of 7% of the share of income tax paid by the top 1% between 2003 and 2006 is going to affect federal revenue more than the *increase* in taxes from capital gains (over 40% of which come from the 'rich') in that period. Also, increases (and decreases) in the capital gains tax (from history) do not have the same rate of increase over time - eventually the temporary gain levels off, or investment dips down temporarily. This is natural - there has never been a method that has introduced steady, consistent growth for longer than about 5 years (and that was a cut).
Leaving capital gains well enough alone leaves them relatively steady, raising and lowering them alternatively leads to 'bursts' of rapid, temporary growth. This is probably why its such a huge things for politians. If the tax is raised now, it will be called to be lowered as soon as it starts dipping, so that it can be toyed with to artificially keep it going up.

It's certainly better for the everyman to stop fretting about the 30,000 people who don't affect the price of the corn at the store, and more about the millions of people who *do*, or the government policies, overspending, and inflation that *does* affect prices and services.

Any business when it is growing [and I know this as I am in the start-up phase of a business] will need to a) find suppliers [invest in other businesses] b) find avenues of marketing and production [invest in other businesses] c) find target customers [provide needs and services] d) find a venue or place[s] to sell at [invest in other businesses] and e) hire employees or outsource jobs (with other companies employees) as needed.

Other things like finding investors, stocks, expanding, etc go into it to, but most of them are not relevent for a small business like mine. Almost every aspect of a company *directly relates* to investing in the economy or providing a service or need. For example, I've in the past been contracted by other companies to do work for *their* companies, giving me a job and providing them a service. Eventually, I used some of those funds to start my own business, which will grow, contributes to the economy through all my supplies I buy, and will hopefully be sucesful enough to eventually take on a few employees.

Posted by Jenai Goss on 08/17/2012 at 12:49 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation