the more a business has to gain the more they are going to risk in order to get the higher profits, if there is little to gain then they are not going to invest

there has to be a reward for the capital invested or companies wont do anything

and im not talking about multi million dollar companies that have millions and millions of cash, small business's that are responsible for employing most of our workforce, a company owner that may risk his whole life savings in order to make more money

So would you say you do support income tax, just not business tax?

The entire tax system is messed up. You have filthy rich people who have all of their money tied up in assets, so when they want to buy a new house - they borrow the money from a bank. It's never taxed because it's not income. Personal taxes need to move towards a consumption based system, you are taxed based solely on what you spend. Regardless of where the money comes from, if you spend it, you pay a tax on it.

the lower the income and corporate tax the better, they also have to deal with all the other taxes that are involved in a business, payrole taxes, unemployment insurance, medicade-medicare, social security, the more opportunity someone has to make money the more they will go out and try to

but its not just taxes, businesses have to deal with so many regulations, books on top of books, many are just dumb, alot are caused by the revolving door with polititions becoming CEO's and board members or the other way around, they help suppress the competition with more regulations, crony capitalism at its finest

there are so many things in the way for an average person who owns or wants to start a company, lawyers needed, its hard to compete with the big corporations, the government just needs to somehow give people the chance to make money without making it so risky to do so

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't agree that tax cuts are necessary. Part of business is taking risks, and if we lose that we lose a lot in the way of competition.

yes but if u take the rewards away people wont take the risks is all im trying to say

If less people take risks then the potential reward for taking risks increases, promoting people to take risks. Kind of like a self-correcting system. The more there is to gain, the more people strive to succeed.

yes but if the government lowered taxes, got rid of a lot of regulations and made the chance to succeed higher there would be a lower risk, companies would hire more to make more, the competition would hire more to compete to make more, the more workers working in that industry would soon get higher wages because the companies would be fighting for the better employees, the economy as a whole would grow if all industry's were like this because so many new jobs would be added and more products could be sold to those people now working

the better environment the government gives the more growth we can have as a nation

if you leave things the way they are now were not going to see a increase here in the US, other nations have half the taxes and regulations that we do, we can not compete on the world market cause all that causes our prices to be higher

Why would i vote for republicans ...no way

Outrage as Republican State Rep Says Slavery Was a ‘Blessing’ and Fellow Candidate Advocates Deporting All Muslims

http://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/outrage-as-republican-state-rep-says-slavery-was-a-blessing-and-fellow-candidate-advocates-deporting-all-muslims/

Alright, I took a bit of time to think this through, and here's what conclusion I've arrived at:

First off, you're absolutely right about the competition thing. I shouldn't have even argued that, I should have moved on. It would be excellent for the economy if smaller businesses could compete more easily. More competition means lower prices (usually), and more competition also means more products aimed at certain demographics, which I could certainly go for. Like an energy drink for homosexual asian men (office reference, I hate myself a little).

However, say we give tax breaks to companies. What's the least risky means of corporate expansion? Horizontal integration. The first thing that large companies will do with that money is buy out their competition. So say you have a 10% tax break on a $5bil company, versus a 10% tax break on a $1mil company. That smaller company might receive an offer of 2-5mil from the larger company, an excellent offer, but the larger company now has a larger herfindahl index. Over time monopolies will develop, dominating the market.

I highly doubt Romney stands for the small business owners. He is supported by the huge companies, so he's doing what will benefit them. It seems like a good idea to give tax breaks to aspiring business-owners, but very few will manage to break into the market, and even fewer will last.