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

[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…

[gandalf]

No, you’re not wrong, citydweller. The approach the Obama Administration has been taking is reasonable. As well as could be expected in this environment.

[gandalf]

No, you’re not wrong, citydweller. The approach the Obama Administration has been taking is reasonable. As well as could be expected in this environment.

[gandalf]

No, you’re not wrong, citydweller. The approach the Obama Administration has been taking is reasonable. As well as could be expected in this environment.

[gandalf]

No, you’re not wrong, citydweller. The approach the Obama Administration has been taking is reasonable. As well as could be expected in this environment.

[gandalf]

No, you’re not wrong, citydweller. The approach the Obama Administration has been taking is reasonable. As well as could be expected in this environment.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$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.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$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.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$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.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$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.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=flu]
$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.
[/quote]

C’mon FLU… $250k is a lot of money even in CA & NY, and yes, I’ve lived in both. Sure, a couple living in Manhattan might want that kind of money to keep up appearances, but paying 2-4% on the income over $250k isn’t going to break them, force them to leave the country, or make them quit and take unemployment.

Besides, the point of married income being less than 2x single is that it’s not half-bad if someone stays home with the kids. And the folks making $200k each probably won’t go bankrupt if one goes part-time.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[Author]

Posts