Man: It's time to let the tax cuts for the rich expire. Man: But those are the very people we need to make our investment decisions! Man: What are you smoking?? Tom: Addictive.
Yeah raise the taxes on the evil rich. That means anyone who makes over $250K. Which just happens to cover most of the evil small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. So YES YES raise their taxes so there will be zero job growth. Now the poor can start creating jobs. I can remember all the jobs that were given to me by the poor……oh wait. The poor don’t create jobs.
Actually, it doesn’t cover most of the small business owners. Only about 3% of small businesses show over $250K in taxable income, and a significant fraction of those are doctors, lawyers, etc., who incorporate to make their business accounting easier and who aren’t ever going to do any significant hiring. The fact that this misinformation (being generous) has been repeated thousands of times on Fox still doesn’t make it true.
Oh, and one more thing: even the small business people who report over $250K in taxable income will still pay the current rates on the first $250K in income. Their taxes will go up only on the amount they make over $250K.
“That means anyone who makes over $250K. Which just happens to cover most of the evil small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. ”
Facts, please. They don’t support you. I’m certain you can find a stance on this that’s based on actual fact to support.
“I can see not counting as a ‘small business owner’ someone who makes $500,000 in from an employer and $2,000 in small business income. And if we included all of those people the number would be comfortably above ‘most’ among the top earners. So reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line. But it seems odd that we would not count as a ‘small business owner’ someone who owns a small business that generates 49 percent of her overall income,” he said.
There’s one final point we want to clarify here for our readers, because we’ve been asked about this before: If you are a small business owner yourself, you would have to be a whiz running a very profitable small business to get hit with a tax increase under the plan Obama supports. You would have to report total income of more than $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples) after all your business expenses were deducted. You may remember this being a key point during the Joe the Plumber debate during the 2008 campaign when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher said to then candidate Obama, “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Back then, the Tax Policy Center analyzed all taxpayers, of any income level, who report these types of business income. They found only about 2 percent of them would see tax increases if the government increased the rates on the top earners. So the vast majority of possible small business owners would not see a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts expire for those in the top incomes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
I think we should raise taxes on everybody, we’re not going to pay down this ballooning deficit without it, but since no one has the political huevos to do that, letting the cuts intentionally expire, as they would have for the most well-to-do among us seems like a compromise. There’s a reason the Republicans were able to get those tax cuts through reconciliation, not terminating them would have a drastic effect on the budget long-term. We know this, they knew this. But it’s not good politics to raise taxes. Obama’s trying to make friends with people by offering them [probably trivial] tax cuts. Tax cuts won’t solve our problems.
harley, you’re changing the line and then pretending to have found a “lie”. It is true that only 3% of small business owners would be affected. It is also true that 48% of the income went to that 3%. It is also true that only the amount they make over $250K would be affected by the higher tax rate.
One thing that looking at those three statements should tell you is that there are a lot of small businesses with relatively small incomes. The other thing that should be obvious is that 3% of the small businesses aren’t going to create that many jobs, because a) there just aren’t enough of them and b) a lot of them (as I said earlier) are doctors, lawyers, or other sole proprietors who file as businesses for accounting and tax reasons.
It’s not enough to just come up with a scary sounding number and say “this is what you should look at!” You have to actually look at it and see what it means.
When you look deeper (all numbers from the SBA, www.sba.gov/research), the complaints look even sillier.
In 2006, there were approximately 27M small businesses in the US. 6M were “small employers” (500). 20.7M were “nonemployers” - the individual lawyers, doctors, and other profressionals who don’t “create jobs”.
In 2005-2006, businesses with 1-4 employees created just over 1M jobs, fully half of all jobs created by businesses 500 employees. That indicates that a lot of small business employment comes from starting new small businesses; it should be obvious that very few of those are immediately going to show taxable income over $250K.
Individuals with cash do not create jobs. Oh, they may take on an illegal maid or gardener, I have yet to hear an explanation of how someone with a pocket full of cash creates a job as soon as they are given more cash they won;t spend right off.
“It’s not enough to just come up with a scary sounding number and say “this is what you should look at!””
That’s what passes as journalism these days, though.
Here’s an interesting article… John Boehner is now saying “maybe” to potential tax cut compromise.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0913/Why-did-John-Boehner-change-his-mind-now-on-Bush-tax-cuts
As I have long said, Republicans are far better at politics. This makes them look “bipartisan” even after they’ve trashed all previous efforts of bipartisanship. But Americans tend to have very short memories.
The Republicans wrote the tax cut to be temporary. That way if they stayed in power they could extend it, & if the Democrats took power they could be blamed for raising taxes.
What about corporate entitlement programs. Are they entitled to suck everything they can out of they economy & expect the government to clean up the environmental impact? I guess the mess doesn’t need cleaning up, because Jesus is going to bring us a new world soon. All we have to do is encourage holy war.
When you put it that way, it almost seems like every single small business would be affected by the tax cuts.
I wonder…
“3% of wealthy are “small business owners.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
“Democrats have passed 25 tax cuts aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/
“Obama compromised on making a tax cut for businesses that hire.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/
“Pants on fire: 94% of small businesses would be hit by higher taxes under Democrat plans.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/
“98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000” and would not see a tax increase under Barack Obama’s plan.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
jack,
You need to understand tax law a bit better. Most of those things you list don’t affect taxable income at all. If a small business takes in $280K and spends it all on payroll, the net change to its taxable income is _$0_. The changes to the tax law that we’re talking about would only affect small businesses that generate over $250K *in personal income – it doesn’t change corporate tax rates – after all deductions, such as payroll, mortgage interest, and cost of sales (things like oil, oil filters, and air filters in your example).
Bear in mind also that the situation is not Obama looking to eliminate the Bush tax cuts; they were originally designed to expire. What he’s looking to do is extend the tax cuts on people earning $250K and let the rest expire as scheduled by the Republicans when they were passed.
They couldn’t pass it as permanent in the first place because too many people understood that it just might not be a good idea.
Love the way you back it up, Jade.
Here’s the REAL question anyway:
Does the owner of the company hire the people or does the small business hire the people.
If you want to throw this argument against taxation around it should concern lowering the taxes on the small business itself NOT the owner of the business.
That is of course unless the small business owner is such a petty twit that he won’t have his business hire anybody because his personal taxes are high.
And what were the rates before and after JFK cut them? Just saying “cut taxes” is the answer regardless of larger economic context is, pardon my bluntness, idiotic.
“Love the way you back it up, Jade.”
“You have a lot of patience.”
That’s all Politifact. I have Politifact and FactCheck on my Twitter feed, so I get to read lots of articles about the goods and bads of both sides.
“You have a lot of patience.”
Google “Politifact Tax Cut Small Business” and you will get all of the links, but read each thoroughly, because unless it’s marked as “False” or “Pants on Fire” the fact being checked has some degree of merit.
“JFK, a Democrat, Cut Taxes for the top 1%”
There’s nothing wrong with cutting taxes for the top 1%. It doesn’t make you a bad person and in good economic times, this makes sense. http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gif
Yup. He cut them from 91% to 65% (though ultimately Congress reduced it to 70%). Know why? Because he knew that rich weren’t paying that 91% income cause of the loop holes associated with that bracket.
“How do you know that fool?”
Cause JFK was also born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He knew the tax game as well.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Toles on thought crime:
http://tinyurl.com/265nc6o
rickbooker over 13 years ago
Yeah raise the taxes on the evil rich. That means anyone who makes over $250K. Which just happens to cover most of the evil small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. So YES YES raise their taxes so there will be zero job growth. Now the poor can start creating jobs. I can remember all the jobs that were given to me by the poor……oh wait. The poor don’t create jobs.
mike.jones over 13 years ago
Actually, it doesn’t cover most of the small business owners. Only about 3% of small businesses show over $250K in taxable income, and a significant fraction of those are doctors, lawyers, etc., who incorporate to make their business accounting easier and who aren’t ever going to do any significant hiring. The fact that this misinformation (being generous) has been repeated thousands of times on Fox still doesn’t make it true.
Nighthawks Premium Member over 13 years ago
this time for sure!
really, swear to god…..trust us!
mike.jones over 13 years ago
Oh, and one more thing: even the small business people who report over $250K in taxable income will still pay the current rates on the first $250K in income. Their taxes will go up only on the amount they make over $250K.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“That means anyone who makes over $250K. Which just happens to cover most of the evil small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. ”
Facts, please. They don’t support you. I’m certain you can find a stance on this that’s based on actual fact to support.“I can see not counting as a ‘small business owner’ someone who makes $500,000 in from an employer and $2,000 in small business income. And if we included all of those people the number would be comfortably above ‘most’ among the top earners. So reasonable people can disagree about where to draw that line. But it seems odd that we would not count as a ‘small business owner’ someone who owns a small business that generates 49 percent of her overall income,” he said. There’s one final point we want to clarify here for our readers, because we’ve been asked about this before: If you are a small business owner yourself, you would have to be a whiz running a very profitable small business to get hit with a tax increase under the plan Obama supports. You would have to report total income of more than $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples) after all your business expenses were deducted. You may remember this being a key point during the Joe the Plumber debate during the 2008 campaign when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher said to then candidate Obama, “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Back then, the Tax Policy Center analyzed all taxpayers, of any income level, who report these types of business income. They found only about 2 percent of them would see tax increases if the government increased the rates on the top earners. So the vast majority of possible small business owners would not see a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts expire for those in the top incomes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
I think we should raise taxes on everybody, we’re not going to pay down this ballooning deficit without it, but since no one has the political huevos to do that, letting the cuts intentionally expire, as they would have for the most well-to-do among us seems like a compromise. There’s a reason the Republicans were able to get those tax cuts through reconciliation, not terminating them would have a drastic effect on the budget long-term. We know this, they knew this. But it’s not good politics to raise taxes. Obama’s trying to make friends with people by offering them [probably trivial] tax cuts. Tax cuts won’t solve our problems.
mike.jones over 13 years ago
harley, you’re changing the line and then pretending to have found a “lie”. It is true that only 3% of small business owners would be affected. It is also true that 48% of the income went to that 3%. It is also true that only the amount they make over $250K would be affected by the higher tax rate.
One thing that looking at those three statements should tell you is that there are a lot of small businesses with relatively small incomes. The other thing that should be obvious is that 3% of the small businesses aren’t going to create that many jobs, because a) there just aren’t enough of them and b) a lot of them (as I said earlier) are doctors, lawyers, or other sole proprietors who file as businesses for accounting and tax reasons.
It’s not enough to just come up with a scary sounding number and say “this is what you should look at!” You have to actually look at it and see what it means.
When you look deeper (all numbers from the SBA, www.sba.gov/research), the complaints look even sillier. In 2006, there were approximately 27M small businesses in the US. 6M were “small employers” (500). 20.7M were “nonemployers” - the individual lawyers, doctors, and other profressionals who don’t “create jobs”. In 2005-2006, businesses with 1-4 employees created just over 1M jobs, fully half of all jobs created by businesses 500 employees. That indicates that a lot of small business employment comes from starting new small businesses; it should be obvious that very few of those are immediately going to show taxable income over $250K.
AdmNaismith over 13 years ago
Individuals with cash do not create jobs. Oh, they may take on an illegal maid or gardener, I have yet to hear an explanation of how someone with a pocket full of cash creates a job as soon as they are given more cash they won;t spend right off.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“It’s not enough to just come up with a scary sounding number and say “this is what you should look at!””
That’s what passes as journalism these days, though.Here’s an interesting article… John Boehner is now saying “maybe” to potential tax cut compromise. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0913/Why-did-John-Boehner-change-his-mind-now-on-Bush-tax-cuts
As I have long said, Republicans are far better at politics. This makes them look “bipartisan” even after they’ve trashed all previous efforts of bipartisanship. But Americans tend to have very short memories.
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
The Republicans wrote the tax cut to be temporary. That way if they stayed in power they could extend it, & if the Democrats took power they could be blamed for raising taxes.
What about corporate entitlement programs. Are they entitled to suck everything they can out of they economy & expect the government to clean up the environmental impact? I guess the mess doesn’t need cleaning up, because Jesus is going to bring us a new world soon. All we have to do is encourage holy war.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ C-c-copy-pasta.
When you put it that way, it almost seems like every single small business would be affected by the tax cuts.
I wonder… “3% of wealthy are “small business owners.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
“Democrats have passed 25 tax cuts aimed mostly at middle class and small businesses” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/
“Obama compromised on making a tax cut for businesses that hire.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/505/create-a-new-american-jobs-tax-credit-for-companie/
“Pants on fire: 94% of small businesses would be hit by higher taxes under Democrat plans.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/
“98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000” and would not see a tax increase under Barack Obama’s plan.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
mike.jones over 13 years ago
jack, You need to understand tax law a bit better. Most of those things you list don’t affect taxable income at all. If a small business takes in $280K and spends it all on payroll, the net change to its taxable income is _$0_. The changes to the tax law that we’re talking about would only affect small businesses that generate over $250K *in personal income – it doesn’t change corporate tax rates – after all deductions, such as payroll, mortgage interest, and cost of sales (things like oil, oil filters, and air filters in your example).
Bear in mind also that the situation is not Obama looking to eliminate the Bush tax cuts; they were originally designed to expire. What he’s looking to do is extend the tax cuts on people earning $250K and let the rest expire as scheduled by the Republicans when they were passed.
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
They couldn’t pass it as permanent in the first place because too many people understood that it just might not be a good idea. Love the way you back it up, Jade.
lalas over 13 years ago
Here’s the REAL question anyway: Does the owner of the company hire the people or does the small business hire the people.
If you want to throw this argument against taxation around it should concern lowering the taxes on the small business itself NOT the owner of the business.
That is of course unless the small business owner is such a petty twit that he won’t have his business hire anybody because his personal taxes are high.
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
If JFK’s tax rate was so great, why not use that one?
mike.jones over 13 years ago
And what were the rates before and after JFK cut them? Just saying “cut taxes” is the answer regardless of larger economic context is, pardon my bluntness, idiotic.
Justice22 over 13 years ago
I don’t understand why so many posters want tax cuts for millionaires when only about half make over a $million a year??
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Love the way you back it up, Jade.” “You have a lot of patience.”
That’s all Politifact. I have Politifact and FactCheck on my Twitter feed, so I get to read lots of articles about the goods and bads of both sides.“You have a lot of patience.”
Google “Politifact Tax Cut Small Business” and you will get all of the links, but read each thoroughly, because unless it’s marked as “False” or “Pants on Fire” the fact being checked has some degree of merit.“JFK, a Democrat, Cut Taxes for the top 1%”
There’s nothing wrong with cutting taxes for the top 1%. It doesn’t make you a bad person and in good economic times, this makes sense. http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gifWarBush over 13 years ago
“JFK, a Democrat, Cut Taxes for the top 1%”
Yup. He cut them from 91% to 65% (though ultimately Congress reduced it to 70%). Know why? Because he knew that rich weren’t paying that 91% income cause of the loop holes associated with that bracket.
“How do you know that fool?”
Cause JFK was also born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He knew the tax game as well.
WarBush over 13 years ago
BTW this toon explains I.Q.3,000,000, Libertarian1 and Peetey to a T.