Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?
- This topic has 210 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
dbapig.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 27, 2009 at 4:19 PM #357196February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM #356620
patientrenter
Participant[quote=citydweller]Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?[/quote]
Yes. Next question, please.
February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM #356925Participant[quote=citydweller]Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?[/quote]
Yes. Next question, please.
February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM #357063Participant[quote=citydweller]Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?[/quote]
Yes. Next question, please.
February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM #357089Participant[quote=citydweller]Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?[/quote]
Yes. Next question, please.
February 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM #357201Participant[quote=citydweller]Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?[/quote]
Yes. Next question, please.
February 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM #356625
CoronitaParticipant[quote=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.[/quote]
So question. Did any of you get polled by the census? I know I didn’t….
February 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM #356930CoronitaParticipant[quote=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.[/quote]
So question. Did any of you get polled by the census? I know I didn’t….
February 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM #357068CoronitaParticipant[quote=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.[/quote]
So question. Did any of you get polled by the census? I know I didn’t….
February 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM #357094CoronitaParticipant[quote=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.[/quote]
So question. Did any of you get polled by the census? I know I didn’t….
February 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM #357205CoronitaParticipant[quote=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.[/quote]
So question. Did any of you get polled by the census? I know I didn’t….
February 27, 2009 at 4:32 PM #356635bob2007
ParticipantI’m not in that range, but I do aspire to be. A couple thoughts come to mind:
1. Those who are not affected usually think its a great idea, and are voting on what to do with other peoples money. That sucks.
2. If you are making more than $250k and think it is a good idea, then there is nothing stopping you right now if you want to contribute more. If is is such a good thing to do, why do you need a law to make you do it?
3. I agree with the post that said you can’t tax your way out of this. The way to make this country stronger is to generate things of value, not spend. If you don’t reward those who generate things of value (penalize them instead with tax) it won’t work.
4. Any business with more than 1 or 2 people needs cash reserves well in excess of $250k, so taxing above that amount does have an effect.
5. Those that are wealthy above the $2M mark usually have more options for avoiding tax. So the burden will be put more on the small business
owners than the larger corporations.February 27, 2009 at 4:32 PM #356940ParticipantI’m not in that range, but I do aspire to be. A couple thoughts come to mind:
1. Those who are not affected usually think its a great idea, and are voting on what to do with other peoples money. That sucks.
2. If you are making more than $250k and think it is a good idea, then there is nothing stopping you right now if you want to contribute more. If is is such a good thing to do, why do you need a law to make you do it?
3. I agree with the post that said you can’t tax your way out of this. The way to make this country stronger is to generate things of value, not spend. If you don’t reward those who generate things of value (penalize them instead with tax) it won’t work.
4. Any business with more than 1 or 2 people needs cash reserves well in excess of $250k, so taxing above that amount does have an effect.
5. Those that are wealthy above the $2M mark usually have more options for avoiding tax. So the burden will be put more on the small business
owners than the larger corporations.February 27, 2009 at 4:32 PM #357078ParticipantI’m not in that range, but I do aspire to be. A couple thoughts come to mind:
1. Those who are not affected usually think its a great idea, and are voting on what to do with other peoples money. That sucks.
2. If you are making more than $250k and think it is a good idea, then there is nothing stopping you right now if you want to contribute more. If is is such a good thing to do, why do you need a law to make you do it?
3. I agree with the post that said you can’t tax your way out of this. The way to make this country stronger is to generate things of value, not spend. If you don’t reward those who generate things of value (penalize them instead with tax) it won’t work.
4. Any business with more than 1 or 2 people needs cash reserves well in excess of $250k, so taxing above that amount does have an effect.
5. Those that are wealthy above the $2M mark usually have more options for avoiding tax. So the burden will be put more on the small business
owners than the larger corporations.February 27, 2009 at 4:32 PM #357104ParticipantI’m not in that range, but I do aspire to be. A couple thoughts come to mind:
1. Those who are not affected usually think its a great idea, and are voting on what to do with other peoples money. That sucks.
2. If you are making more than $250k and think it is a good idea, then there is nothing stopping you right now if you want to contribute more. If is is such a good thing to do, why do you need a law to make you do it?
3. I agree with the post that said you can’t tax your way out of this. The way to make this country stronger is to generate things of value, not spend. If you don’t reward those who generate things of value (penalize them instead with tax) it won’t work.
4. Any business with more than 1 or 2 people needs cash reserves well in excess of $250k, so taxing above that amount does have an effect.
5. Those that are wealthy above the $2M mark usually have more options for avoiding tax. So the burden will be put more on the small business
owners than the larger corporations. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.