Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?

[asragov]

The cries of class warfare are absurd. The way that Republicans are opposed to closing offshore loopholes for large corporations and fairer taxation at the high end is simply absurd.

Those fortunate enough to be in the highest tax bracket will not notice much of a change – a few points here or there is no big deal (really, it’s not warfare).

I resented Sen. Gregg’s comments along the lines of, “If you raise taxes on the entrepreneurs, they’ll have no reason to work anymore.”

Excuse me?! Raising my taxes a few % in a time of national crisis means I’ll chuck everything? How cynical and just plain wrong.

The conservative pundit David Brooks had it right, analyzing Gov. Jindal’s response to Obama’s speech:

“But to come up at this moment in history with a stale “government is the problem,” “we can’t trust the federal government” — it’s just a disaster for the Republican Party. The country is in a panic right now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill, but that idea … that government is going to have no role, the federal government has no role in this … it’s just a form of nihilism.”

Hopefully we are hearing the last squeal of these guys, before we get some level-headed people representing the Republican party again.

[citydweller]

OK, I’m shamelessly bumping this back up. I had hoped to get some healthy debate going.

[citydweller]

OK, I’m shamelessly bumping this back up. I had hoped to get some healthy debate going.

[citydweller]

OK, I’m shamelessly bumping this back up. I had hoped to get some healthy debate going.

[citydweller]

OK, I’m shamelessly bumping this back up. I had hoped to get some healthy debate going.

[citydweller]

OK, I’m shamelessly bumping this back up. I had hoped to get some healthy debate going.

[Coronita]

The beef i have with obama’s plan is that the limits for definition of “wealthy” on individual/marriage income.

It’s $250,000 for a married couple, and often cited as $200,000 for singles. And there lies my big beef.

$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.

Consider alternative two people that don’t marry. Combined, Obama’s tax on wealthy only occurs if the combined income is $400k+. Ok, I can start so see where $400k+ is considered “wealth(ier)”. but doesn’t this strike folks as odd that the limits are so lopsided. Is there an assumption that one family is a breadmaker and the other is a houseparent?

From a tax perspective, it probably makes fiscal sense to defer marriage until this message is sorted out, and have a kid out of wedlock.

And no, you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
One of the main reasons why so many companies want to leave CA is the absurdly higher costs associated in CA.

If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??

Why this administration isn’t trying to focus on international trade and accompanying job creation to support that is beyond me. Dumping borrowed money into a bunch of infrastructure projects and domestic spending is only buying time when foreign countries decide to stop lending to the U.S..

[Coronita]

The beef i have with obama’s plan is that the limits for definition of “wealthy” on individual/marriage income.

It’s $250,000 for a married couple, and often cited as $200,000 for singles. And there lies my big beef.

$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.

Consider alternative two people that don’t marry. Combined, Obama’s tax on wealthy only occurs if the combined income is $400k+. Ok, I can start so see where $400k+ is considered “wealth(ier)”. but doesn’t this strike folks as odd that the limits are so lopsided. Is there an assumption that one family is a breadmaker and the other is a houseparent?

From a tax perspective, it probably makes fiscal sense to defer marriage until this message is sorted out, and have a kid out of wedlock.

And no, you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
One of the main reasons why so many companies want to leave CA is the absurdly higher costs associated in CA.

If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??

Why this administration isn’t trying to focus on international trade and accompanying job creation to support that is beyond me. Dumping borrowed money into a bunch of infrastructure projects and domestic spending is only buying time when foreign countries decide to stop lending to the U.S..

[Coronita]

The beef i have with obama’s plan is that the limits for definition of “wealthy” on individual/marriage income.

It’s $250,000 for a married couple, and often cited as $200,000 for singles. And there lies my big beef.

$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.

Consider alternative two people that don’t marry. Combined, Obama’s tax on wealthy only occurs if the combined income is $400k+. Ok, I can start so see where $400k+ is considered “wealth(ier)”. but doesn’t this strike folks as odd that the limits are so lopsided. Is there an assumption that one family is a breadmaker and the other is a houseparent?

From a tax perspective, it probably makes fiscal sense to defer marriage until this message is sorted out, and have a kid out of wedlock.

And no, you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
One of the main reasons why so many companies want to leave CA is the absurdly higher costs associated in CA.

If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??

Why this administration isn’t trying to focus on international trade and accompanying job creation to support that is beyond me. Dumping borrowed money into a bunch of infrastructure projects and domestic spending is only buying time when foreign countries decide to stop lending to the U.S..

[Coronita]

The beef i have with obama’s plan is that the limits for definition of “wealthy” on individual/marriage income.

It’s $250,000 for a married couple, and often cited as $200,000 for singles. And there lies my big beef.

$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.

Consider alternative two people that don’t marry. Combined, Obama’s tax on wealthy only occurs if the combined income is $400k+. Ok, I can start so see where $400k+ is considered “wealth(ier)”. but doesn’t this strike folks as odd that the limits are so lopsided. Is there an assumption that one family is a breadmaker and the other is a houseparent?

From a tax perspective, it probably makes fiscal sense to defer marriage until this message is sorted out, and have a kid out of wedlock.

And no, you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
One of the main reasons why so many companies want to leave CA is the absurdly higher costs associated in CA.

If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??

Why this administration isn’t trying to focus on international trade and accompanying job creation to support that is beyond me. Dumping borrowed money into a bunch of infrastructure projects and domestic spending is only buying time when foreign countries decide to stop lending to the U.S..

[Coronita]

The beef i have with obama’s plan is that the limits for definition of “wealthy” on individual/marriage income.

It’s $250,000 for a married couple, and often cited as $200,000 for singles. And there lies my big beef.

$250,000 household income isn’t “wealthy” in some higher costs states like CA/NY, that’s Single people making $125k/year. Particularly, by definition “household” usually includes “children” and no, despite what some people may think about having a tax benefit for having a child, you still come out negative UNLESS you happen to be like the octet mom who completely depends on state disability and welfare.

Consider alternative two people that don’t marry. Combined, Obama’s tax on wealthy only occurs if the combined income is $400k+. Ok, I can start so see where $400k+ is considered “wealth(ier)”. but doesn’t this strike folks as odd that the limits are so lopsided. Is there an assumption that one family is a breadmaker and the other is a houseparent?

From a tax perspective, it probably makes fiscal sense to defer marriage until this message is sorted out, and have a kid out of wedlock.

And no, you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
One of the main reasons why so many companies want to leave CA is the absurdly higher costs associated in CA.

If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??

Why this administration isn’t trying to focus on international trade and accompanying job creation to support that is beyond me. Dumping borrowed money into a bunch of infrastructure projects and domestic spending is only buying time when foreign countries decide to stop lending to the U.S..

[citydweller]

flu, thanks for responding.

I have trouble with the logic of this statement:

“If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??”

A company that is having a hard time making money will not be impacted at all by the tax increase. It’s not until they start clearing a monthly PROFIT of $20,000 per month that they are even affected. And as the article points out, the taxes are only increased on that portion of profit over $250,000 per year.

So if their profit rises to $300,000 per year they would see a 3% increase in taxes on only a portion of that profit.

I’m not a business owner, so I can’t say what their thought process would be. However, if my boss offered me a $50,000 per year raise, but told me I would have to pay 39% of it in taxes instead of 36%, I don’t think that would dissuade me at all from accepting the raise.

Hope I’m making sense…

[citydweller]

flu, thanks for responding.

I have trouble with the logic of this statement:

“If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??”

A company that is having a hard time making money will not be impacted at all by the tax increase. It’s not until they start clearing a monthly PROFIT of $20,000 per month that they are even affected. And as the article points out, the taxes are only increased on that portion of profit over $250,000 per year.

So if their profit rises to $300,000 per year they would see a 3% increase in taxes on only a portion of that profit.

I’m not a business owner, so I can’t say what their thought process would be. However, if my boss offered me a $50,000 per year raise, but told me I would have to pay 39% of it in taxes instead of 36%, I don’t think that would dissuade me at all from accepting the raise.

Hope I’m making sense…

[citydweller]

flu, thanks for responding.

I have trouble with the logic of this statement:

“If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??”

A company that is having a hard time making money will not be impacted at all by the tax increase. It’s not until they start clearing a monthly PROFIT of $20,000 per month that they are even affected. And as the article points out, the taxes are only increased on that portion of profit over $250,000 per year.

So if their profit rises to $300,000 per year they would see a 3% increase in taxes on only a portion of that profit.

I’m not a business owner, so I can’t say what their thought process would be. However, if my boss offered me a $50,000 per year raise, but told me I would have to pay 39% of it in taxes instead of 36%, I don’t think that would dissuade me at all from accepting the raise.

Hope I’m making sense…

[citydweller]

flu, thanks for responding.

I have trouble with the logic of this statement:

“If companies are already having a tough time making money, and on top of that you levy even higher taxes, guess who’s going to get axed??”

A company that is having a hard time making money will not be impacted at all by the tax increase. It’s not until they start clearing a monthly PROFIT of $20,000 per month that they are even affected. And as the article points out, the taxes are only increased on that portion of profit over $250,000 per year.

So if their profit rises to $300,000 per year they would see a 3% increase in taxes on only a portion of that profit.

I’m not a business owner, so I can’t say what their thought process would be. However, if my boss offered me a $50,000 per year raise, but told me I would have to pay 39% of it in taxes instead of 36%, I don’t think that would dissuade me at all from accepting the raise.

Hope I’m making sense…

[Author]

Posts