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

[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.

[felix]

I understand that a small business making $250,00/year sounds like it’s doing well. I would agree one guy making $250,000/year is pretty well off. However, it seems many here are assuming these businesses are one owner businesses. I don’t think that is an assumption one should make.

I have been involved in a number of small businesses, all of mine involved multiple party ownership. And I think that isn’t very unusual. Many times five or more people had stakes in the businesses I co-owned.

So a small business, if incorporated, as many are, making over $250,000/year would be hit with this tax increase on the “wealthy”, as an entity, reducing the amount passed through to the owners.

For example, a business hit hard due to the economic situation,(let’s say it was making $500,000/yr for 5 owners but now is making only $300,000) will now be nicked again due this tax on the “wealthy”.

I don’t know if I’d consider these five guys “wealthy” even wen sharing $500,000.

So I won’t be surprised if this tax on the “wealthy” results in some layoffs an/or salary cuts.

[felix]

I understand that a small business making $250,00/year sounds like it’s doing well. I would agree one guy making $250,000/year is pretty well off. However, it seems many here are assuming these businesses are one owner businesses. I don’t think that is an assumption one should make.

I have been involved in a number of small businesses, all of mine involved multiple party ownership. And I think that isn’t very unusual. Many times five or more people had stakes in the businesses I co-owned.

So a small business, if incorporated, as many are, making over $250,000/year would be hit with this tax increase on the “wealthy”, as an entity, reducing the amount passed through to the owners.

For example, a business hit hard due to the economic situation,(let’s say it was making $500,000/yr for 5 owners but now is making only $300,000) will now be nicked again due this tax on the “wealthy”.

I don’t know if I’d consider these five guys “wealthy” even wen sharing $500,000.

So I won’t be surprised if this tax on the “wealthy” results in some layoffs an/or salary cuts.

[felix]

I understand that a small business making $250,00/year sounds like it’s doing well. I would agree one guy making $250,000/year is pretty well off. However, it seems many here are assuming these businesses are one owner businesses. I don’t think that is an assumption one should make.

I have been involved in a number of small businesses, all of mine involved multiple party ownership. And I think that isn’t very unusual. Many times five or more people had stakes in the businesses I co-owned.

So a small business, if incorporated, as many are, making over $250,000/year would be hit with this tax increase on the “wealthy”, as an entity, reducing the amount passed through to the owners.

For example, a business hit hard due to the economic situation,(let’s say it was making $500,000/yr for 5 owners but now is making only $300,000) will now be nicked again due this tax on the “wealthy”.

I don’t know if I’d consider these five guys “wealthy” even wen sharing $500,000.

So I won’t be surprised if this tax on the “wealthy” results in some layoffs an/or salary cuts.

[felix]

I understand that a small business making $250,00/year sounds like it’s doing well. I would agree one guy making $250,000/year is pretty well off. However, it seems many here are assuming these businesses are one owner businesses. I don’t think that is an assumption one should make.

I have been involved in a number of small businesses, all of mine involved multiple party ownership. And I think that isn’t very unusual. Many times five or more people had stakes in the businesses I co-owned.

So a small business, if incorporated, as many are, making over $250,000/year would be hit with this tax increase on the “wealthy”, as an entity, reducing the amount passed through to the owners.

For example, a business hit hard due to the economic situation,(let’s say it was making $500,000/yr for 5 owners but now is making only $300,000) will now be nicked again due this tax on the “wealthy”.

I don’t know if I’d consider these five guys “wealthy” even wen sharing $500,000.

So I won’t be surprised if this tax on the “wealthy” results in some layoffs an/or salary cuts.

[felix]

I understand that a small business making $250,00/year sounds like it’s doing well. I would agree one guy making $250,000/year is pretty well off. However, it seems many here are assuming these businesses are one owner businesses. I don’t think that is an assumption one should make.

I have been involved in a number of small businesses, all of mine involved multiple party ownership. And I think that isn’t very unusual. Many times five or more people had stakes in the businesses I co-owned.

So a small business, if incorporated, as many are, making over $250,000/year would be hit with this tax increase on the “wealthy”, as an entity, reducing the amount passed through to the owners.

For example, a business hit hard due to the economic situation,(let’s say it was making $500,000/yr for 5 owners but now is making only $300,000) will now be nicked again due this tax on the “wealthy”.

I don’t know if I’d consider these five guys “wealthy” even wen sharing $500,000.

So I won’t be surprised if this tax on the “wealthy” results in some layoffs an/or salary cuts.

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[an]

Like FLU said, and I’ll repeat again, IF YOU think $250k is “wealthy” for a family with 2 income, why not make it $125k for single? Why is it that you’re not wealthy as a single until you make $200k a year but as soon as you’re married, you’re wealthy making $50k more? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

[an]

Like FLU said, and I’ll repeat again, IF YOU think $250k is “wealthy” for a family with 2 income, why not make it $125k for single? Why is it that you’re not wealthy as a single until you make $200k a year but as soon as you’re married, you’re wealthy making $50k more? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

[an]

Like FLU said, and I’ll repeat again, IF YOU think $250k is “wealthy” for a family with 2 income, why not make it $125k for single? Why is it that you’re not wealthy as a single until you make $200k a year but as soon as you’re married, you’re wealthy making $50k more? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

[an]

Like FLU said, and I’ll repeat again, IF YOU think $250k is “wealthy” for a family with 2 income, why not make it $125k for single? Why is it that you’re not wealthy as a single until you make $200k a year but as soon as you’re married, you’re wealthy making $50k more? Doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Author]

Posts