[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.
Lol, it literally took me ten minutes to find that stuff. Google site search george bush national debt zeb. You say you disagreed with Bush a number of times. I didn’t see many, but granted I didn’t look long. I’d love to see all these posts of you being critical of Bush. I doubt they exist in any place other than your mind. You have 18,000 posts. Shouldn’t be hard to prove it right? After all it wasn’t hard for me to prove how full of shit you are on the debt and Obama with your own words.
LMFAO with nothing better to do and your creepy stalker bullshit. Whatever you want to believe. You have fucking 18,000 posts and you want to talk about me not having anything better to do. And you said creepy is not posting on a regular basis on a site you enjoy. What the fuck does that even mean? You really enjoy posting we can see that by your over 18,000 posts.
As for the Ron Paul stuff you’re right. He had no chance of winning. He’s in the exact same position your boy is in. Not President. Maybe if you dumbasses had elected a Libertarian you’d have won. Instead you nominated a Mass. moderate parading as a wanna be conservative. Mitt Romney, conservative since 2012! You guys nominated a guy who lost to someone with 8% unemployment and you wanna talk about my choices?
Anyways, I’ve proven my point and you haven’t. You ignored your own words because you knew they made you look bad. And they really do Zeb, they really make you look trivial as you pound Obama for what you apologized for Bush for. You’ll continue to ignore your own words just as you will continue to ignore anything the Republicans do ever.
You’re a party cheerleader of that there is no denying. You’re a GOP nuthugger, swinging from them elephant balls. And you’re REALLY mad at this President for doing what the last one did. But you weren’t mad at him. You defended him with 18,000 posts.
Also what is ironic is that looking up old posts on the internet is probably less time consuming than piecing together and typing long multi-part replies.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.[/quote]
Nope, I’m thinking you’re just a tad retarded. I mean not enough to have to be placed in an institution or anything. But, just enough to float through life as passable if someone really doesn’t talk to you for very long.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Also what is ironic is that looking up old posts on the internet is probably less time consuming than piecing together and typing long multi-part replies.[/quote]
But then again how would you know anything about long muliti-part replies?
Obama really has no choice but to focus on the debt. Every 8 year president wants to be remembered, which he will be if he can manage to work out a deal to begin to climb out of debt that doesn’t launch us into another recession in next few years.
Either they work something out or we go off the fiscal cliff on Jan 1st 2012 and they figure something out shortly after. If this happens we should be in okay shape and not go into a recession but depending on how they do it, there could be other repercussions.
Or we have an epic battle of 0 compromise by either side coupled with gross incompetence. In which case we remain over the cliff for all of 2013 and tax increases and spending cuts across the board screw us into a recession. Last I heard the Republican majority in Congress does not give the Democrats free reign to do whatever they want, they still have some options to fight a compromise they don’t like and they will until they have none left.
We are stuck with whatever Boehner and Obama can sell to the Republicans that say they wont approve more income tax for 250K people. Its not all doom and gloom nothing is set in stone yet as far as an inevitable market crash. Anyone who says otherwise is just guessing. There is a bit too much fear mongering going on right now mainly because its interesting and exciting in an upsetting way to speculate about all the ways this could go wrong.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Lol, it literally took me ten minutes to find that stuff.[/quote]
No it didn’t, took you must longer and you didn’t mind because all the while you were thinking “I’ll show that Zeb” Know why sparky? Because I am in your head.
By th way why are you on almost every PWI thread almost by the minute? It’s surprising how many different threads you’ve managed to jump on and spew your nonsense. You’ve come alive after the Obama win. You are regenerated and have nothing going on in your life to prevent you from pissing all over this forum. And that is exactly what you’re doing. You’ve been demasked.
You are the one stalking me I would think that you’d be able to find the two areas were I disagreed with Bush vehemently. Now get going if you find those two I am going to talk to some people here at T Nation and try to make you…(drum roll) “Stalker Of The Year”.
Now wouldn’t you like to win that title? Sure you would. You could show all of your friends at the next Star Trek Convention.
I proved you wrong stalker. I proved that the Obama debt is far, far more severe than anything any republican or democrat has done in the past. AND that is why everyone should now be concerned. I also proved you wrong on republican states and fiscal responsibility. Don’t want to talk about that one do you punk?
You remind me of a 5 year old. I have to tell you everything three or four times before it actually sinks in. “Creepy” is not the amount of posts that one has. Entertainment is entertainment. And I’ve been entertained by T Nation and company for almost 10 years. Now listen closely as this next sentence or two applies directly to you! “Creepy” is someone who takes the time to look into your past posting history and follows you around the Internet trying to engage you in conversation regarding such. And that my creepy little man…IS YOU!
Like Gary Johnson did LMAO! You knit wit.
Or not…Most likely would have gotten somewhere around 20 million votes and 0 in the electoral college. Most people understand that libertarians are mostly young males with too much time on their hands and a head full of shit. You know…like you.
You’ve proven that you’re a creepy little stalker man not much else.
But for some reason cannot answer why every republican state that has been ruled by republicans for several terms is in good fiscal health. Facts suck for you huh?
Still running from that one and you will never address it because you can’t
What words have “made me look bad” Be specific. I know it’s hard to focus that tiny libertarian mind of yours but give it all you have.
Not true (again) I’ve told you now four times (makes you worse than a 5 year old) that the debt is now grabbing everyones attention because (here we go again) Obama has raised it higher than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. When the debt climbs higher in one four year term than it did over the past 200+ years I think that deserves attention. So try to get a hold of reality and wrap your arms around why it wasn’t as big a deal to anyone when G W Bush was President.
Now you’re going to have to remember the above because I don’t feel like typing it over again for the 6th time.
And you’re a very odd creepy Internet stalker, of that there is no denying.
No actually some of those posts were in unrelated threads. Hey…you didn’t know that? You’re not only wrong on your political analysis you also suck as a stalker!
Wanna make a bet that there will be a republican in the White House before a libertarian?
No…you dont’ want to make that bet do you?
And lest we forget, you also ran with your tail between your legs on the following challenge:
Find all those fiscally irresponsible republican states. I’m laughing at you punk because I know your personality and you’ve been trying like hell to find a long-term republican governed state that is in fiscal trouble and you just can’t find one.
Know why junior?
There are not any to be found! Might be time for you to admit it as I will continue to remind you. You’ve read all my posts you know I won’t let it die.
Republicanism when not interfered with by liberalism actually works. Whereas, libertarianism is simply a bad idea whose time will never come. But you keep sucking the libertarian cock and find out how many get elected to high positions.
“I voted for Gary Johnson because I wanted to make a statement”
We are stuck with whatever Boehner and Obama can sell to the Republicans that say they wont approve more income tax for 250K people. Its not all doom and gloom nothing is set in stone yet as far as an inevitable market crash. Anyone who says otherwise is just guessing. There is a bit too much fear mongering going on right now mainly because its interesting and exciting in an upsetting way to speculate about all the ways this could go wrong.[/quote]
You are correct we are stuck with whatever those two agree to. But I assure you if taxes go up on those making 250-k plus we will enter a deeper recession than the previous one. You don’t tax job creators during such a weak recovery. But Obama is an ideologue and nothing would surprise me. He did have two years with both houses of congress democrat and he squandered those years pushing health care.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.[/quote]
Nope, I’m thinking you’re just a tad retarded. I mean not enough to have to be placed in an institution or anything. But, just enough to float through life as passable if someone really doesn’t talk to you for very long.
[/quote]
Prove you are not living under care in a nursing home and I will never post here again.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.[/quote]
Nope, I’m thinking you’re just a tad retarded. I mean not enough to have to be placed in an institution or anything. But, just enough to float through life as passable if someone really doesn’t talk to you for very long.
[/quote]
Prove you are not living under care in a nursing home and I will never post here again.[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.[/quote]
Nope, I’m thinking you’re just a tad retarded. I mean not enough to have to be placed in an institution or anything. But, just enough to float through life as passable if someone really doesn’t talk to you for very long.
[/quote]
Prove you are not living under care in a nursing home and I will never post here again.[/quote]
Andy shh…the adults are talking now.[/quote]
Like the other person you were talking to and called a 5 year old?
That is the primary argument against these taxes but many including myself are not convinced this is as evil as it sounds.
Mitt was right in saying that a significant portion of employment is provided by small business.
He argued these job creators fall largely in this tax bracket.
To the best of my research that is not 100% true. I have found numbers quoting that only 2% of small business fall within that income after all deductions for expenses.
The counter argument to that being, that well it is really those 2% of top earning small business who are employing people because those are the successful small businesses on the path of growth.
The counter argument to that is that well its still just income tax, so those special 2% are then encourage to reinvest to keep their earnings from spilling into the hire tax bracket as more investment will earn them further tax breaks. Then they would also argue that tax are not the only or sole factor in determining whether that company will invest in more workers or let people go. Supply and demand and other business issues far out weigh concerns over crushing taxes and therefore hiring decisions have very little to do with just taxes then.
I think at this point we are pretty much down to a business philosophy argument. Conservatives argue the tax increase is a crushing blow to those 2% at a rough time and will stagnate growth. While liberals say they are blowing this out of proportion and the people complaining the loudest are just worried about their wallets and that it encourages rather than discourages investments.
Conservatives at the extreme want encourage growth through as much personal economic freedom as possible, the only problem with that is people are greedy bastards and if you give em an inch they will take a mile.
Extreme liberals want to hold a gun to rich peoples heads and say, if you are not growing the economy and creating jobs of your own free will I am going to take your money until you decide to use your excess the way I want you to. The only problem with that is people are generally greedy bastards and if they feel like they are under attack by their government they will fight back or run and hide…
It sounds like this really is fundamentally and ideology war worrying that letting one side win will open the flood gates to some real tax increases down the road… No one is loosing their job over this and most of us don’t know many people making over 250k a year that will be bothered by a few hundreds dollars a year. I do however believe that many truly wealthy right wing Americans feel like this is a slippery slope towards relying on their wallets to bail out the government and its a trend they will fight by all means at their disposal.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey H factor why don’t you ask Max who posts right here on this site how good the liberals in California have done.
Go ahead talk to someone who lives in a state where the left has controlled the state house term after term with no conservatives to get in the way.
ASK HIM…GO AHEAD.[/quote]
I thought Arnold fixed everything[/quote]
You thought wrong.
Arnold borrowed to pay for the already existing debt, hoping the economy would get better. It got worse.
Now, we have total Union control. This state has a 2/3 majority in every house, bought and paid for by Unions. We tried to pass Prop 32 last week, similar to the “Citizens United” case but on a statewide level. It was going to eliminate automatic deductions from Union worker paychecks, making them optional, as well as limiting campaign donations from corporations as well. It was going to level the field, and drain the swamp of bribery, but it failed. Unions spent $50 Million to kill it, and may it rest in peace.
Within minutes (literally minutes) of passing the largest tax increase of US history (surpassing Arnold’s tax increase), 4 more tax measures were announced as well as tuition increases for public universities in California. The problem is, the Guvvy promised to rescind and suspend tuition increases for one year, the Governor lied and could care less about all the kids screaming who voted for the tax increase and STILL have to pay for more tuition.
But the REAL bitch of it, the governor is now useless. The Legislature can now override any veto he might want, the Unions own it all.
The new governors of California, are the Teacher’s Union, who openly bragged about robbing the wallets of Californians once the tax passed last Tuesday. Jerry Brown is useless.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I forgot to do this before the election but it doesn’t matter now that Obama won. I wanted to start a thread asking what minimum things the next president had to do in order to succeed, holding Obama and Romney to the same standard.
My guess is that if Romney failed to meet those requirements then Zeb would still vote for him in 2016, and I could have referred back to that thread from 4 years ago pointing out Romney failed in Zebs own words.[/quote]
I suppose he would do what he did with mine. Attack you and when he’s caught red handed say “I didn’t say that!”
[/quote]
I’ve heard hes old, so maybe he just can’t remember anymore.[/quote]
Oh don’t listen to rumors. I heard you were semi-retarded and I never believed it. Never believed it that is until I started reading your posts. Honestly, if you are not being taken care of by someone I will never post here again. Come on prove that you are actually a functioning adult under no supervision.
I’ll be waiting for the proof…[/quote]
I’ve already proved this, maybe you don’t remember.[/quote]
Nope, I’m thinking you’re just a tad retarded. I mean not enough to have to be placed in an institution or anything. But, just enough to float through life as passable if someone really doesn’t talk to you for very long.
[/quote]
Prove you are not living under care in a nursing home and I will never post here again.[/quote]
Andy shh…the adults are talking now.[/quote]
Like the other person you were talking to and called a 5 year old?[/quote]
I see your reading comprehension is no better than a 5 year olds. Now does that mean that I just called you a 5 year old? You better reread the post you are referring to.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
That is the primary argument against these taxes but many including myself are not convinced this is as evil as it sounds.
Mitt was right in saying that a significant portion of employment is provided by small business.
He argued these job creators fall largely in this tax bracket.
To the best of my research that is not 100% true. I have found numbers quoting that only 2% of small business fall within that income after all deductions for expenses.
The counter argument to that being, that well it is really those 2% of top earning small business who are employing people because those are the successful small businesses on the path of growth.
The counter argument to that is that well its still just income tax, so those special 2% are then encourage to reinvest to keep their earnings from spilling into the hire tax bracket as more investment will earn them further tax breaks. Then they would also argue that tax are not the only or sole factor in determining whether that company will invest in more workers or let people go. Supply and demand and other business issues far out weigh concerns over crushing taxes and therefore hiring decisions have very little to do with just taxes then.
I think at this point we are pretty much down to a business philosophy argument. Conservatives argue the tax increase is a crushing blow to those 2% at a rough time and will stagnate growth. While liberals say they are blowing this out of proportion and the people complaining the loudest are just worried about their wallets and that it encourages rather than discourages investments.
Conservatives at the extreme want encourage growth through as much personal economic freedom as possible, the only problem with that is people are greedy bastards and if you give em an inch they will take a mile.
Extreme liberals want to hold a gun to rich peoples heads and say, if you are not growing the economy and creating jobs of your own free will I am going to take your money until you decide to use your excess the way I want you to. The only problem with that is people are generally greedy bastards and if they feel like they are under attack by their government they will fight back or run and hide…
It sounds like this really is fundamentally and ideology war worrying that letting one side win will open the flood gates to some real tax increases down the road… No one is loosing their job over this and most of us don’t know many people making over 250k a year that will be bothered by a few hundreds dollars a year. I do however believe that many truly wealthy right wing Americans feel like this is a slippery slope towards relying on their wallets to bail out the government and its a trend they will fight by all means at their disposal.
[/quote]
Virtually every small business that I am aware of is incorporated under “S” or “LLC” that means that cash flows through their business directly to them as personal income. So just about every small business in the country will in fact be effected by the hike in taxes on those making 250-k or more. Also, keep in mind that about 65% of all new hires are from small business. If you are a small business do you hire in the face of tax hikes, or hunker down and wait for Obama’s second term to end?
I don’t see how taxes can be raised on those making 250-k or more without devastating effects to the economy.
Here’s an idea, if Obama thinks it will only effect 2% of small business people then why not give them an exemption? I will tell you why that will never happen, because he knows that this directly effects most of the small business people and without them they won’t raise enough short term revenue for the tax hike to matter.
With that said, it will absolutely devastate small business sending the economy into another recescion far worst than the previous.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey H factor why don’t you ask Max who posts right here on this site how good the liberals in California have done.
Go ahead talk to someone who lives in a state where the left has controlled the state house term after term with no conservatives to get in the way.
ASK HIM…GO AHEAD.[/quote]
I thought Arnold fixed everything[/quote]
You thought wrong.
Arnold borrowed to pay for the already existing debt, hoping the economy would get better. It got worse.
Now, we have total Union control. This state has a 2/3 majority in every house, bought and paid for by Unions. We tried to pass Prop 32 last week, similar to the “Citizens United” case but on a statewide level. It was going to eliminate automatic deductions from Union worker paychecks, making them optional, as well as limiting campaign donations from corporations as well. It was going to level the field, and drain the swamp of bribery, but it failed. Unions spent $50 Million to kill it, and may it rest in peace.
Within minutes (literally minutes) of passing the largest tax increase of US history (surpassing Arnold’s tax increase), 4 more tax measures were announced as well as tuition increases for public universities in California. The problem is, the Guvvy promised to rescind and suspend tuition increases for one year, the Governor lied and could care less about all the kids screaming who voted for the tax increase and STILL have to pay for more tuition.
But the REAL bitch of it, the governor is now useless. The Legislature can now override any veto he might want, the Unions own it all.
The new governors of California, are the Teacher’s Union, who openly bragged about robbing the wallets of Californians once the tax passed last Tuesday. Jerry Brown is useless.
[/quote]
Hey Max how many liberal Governors has the state of California had over the past 30 years? With just about zero conservative influence what are the chances that California will every see it’s way clear from all the debt?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey H factor why don’t you ask Max who posts right here on this site how good the liberals in California have done.
Go ahead talk to someone who lives in a state where the left has controlled the state house term after term with no conservatives to get in the way.
ASK HIM…GO AHEAD.[/quote]
I thought Arnold fixed everything[/quote]
You thought wrong.
Arnold borrowed to pay for the already existing debt, hoping the economy would get better. It got worse.
Now, we have total Union control. This state has a 2/3 majority in every house, bought and paid for by Unions. We tried to pass Prop 32 last week, similar to the “Citizens United” case but on a statewide level. It was going to eliminate automatic deductions from Union worker paychecks, making them optional, as well as limiting campaign donations from corporations as well. It was going to level the field, and drain the swamp of bribery, but it failed. Unions spent $50 Million to kill it, and may it rest in peace.
Within minutes (literally minutes) of passing the largest tax increase of US history (surpassing Arnold’s tax increase), 4 more tax measures were announced as well as tuition increases for public universities in California. The problem is, the Guvvy promised to rescind and suspend tuition increases for one year, the Governor lied and could care less about all the kids screaming who voted for the tax increase and STILL have to pay for more tuition.
But the REAL bitch of it, the governor is now useless. The Legislature can now override any veto he might want, the Unions own it all.
The new governors of California, are the Teacher’s Union, who openly bragged about robbing the wallets of Californians once the tax passed last Tuesday. Jerry Brown is useless.
[/quote]
Hey Max how many liberal Governors has the state of California had over the past 30 years? With just about zero conservative influence what are the chances that California will every see it’s way clear from all the debt?[/quote]
In the past 30 years, California has had 1 Liberal Governor, keep in mind that some of the GOP Governors were really RINOS (Arnold was the poster child for this).
Something will eventually fail, it will get so bad that people will finally vote these fuckers out. I foresee that happening within 2 years, maybe sooner. Recalls, storming the capital, riots, something will pop off soon.
What has happened is the increase in Unions and immigrants who are usually poor. Dems aligned themselves with these groups. Latino moral values are more Republican, but their financial status makes Democratic policies more attractive. If you hand it out, they will come.
How is that guy still around. It seems like Jello was writing songs about him in the late '70s.
He is in search of a legacy. In 1975, he passed the state law which allowed public workers to Unionize. Now that has come back to bite him in the ass, with 450,000 Union workers in California, he is beholden to them, as they donated $60 Million to his election campaign. He had to throw them the biggest bone of all time, passing the High Speed Rail, the biggest infrastructure boondoggle in US History.
Brown wants to make California the Liberal wet dream, passing a Global Warming Law, High Speed Train, while creating the worst business climate in the country, worst bond rating in the country, most welfare in the country, highest taxes in the country, 2nd worst schools only behind the DC school district, and the 3rd highest unemployment in the country.
Soon, California will ask for a Federal Bailout, there is talk of this already. Please, please, please, say no. We need to drown, because the only way for us to improve is embrace ruin.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
That is the primary argument against these taxes but many including myself are not convinced this is as evil as it sounds.
Mitt was right in saying that a significant portion of employment is provided by small business.
He argued these job creators fall largely in this tax bracket.
To the best of my research that is not 100% true. I have found numbers quoting that only 2% of small business fall within that income after all deductions for expenses.
[/quote]
I would lay a large portion of my accumulate life savings saying that’s incorrect. 2% is laughably small chunk of a pie the size of\ small business making up 65% of all national hirings. Please provide a source. Otherwise I’ll continue to side with beans, our resident account manager and CPA here who deals largely with businesses. He lives in the field.
If I am not mistaken, all S corps income is filed as personal income, and the top bracket is over 250,000 a year. So in order for your statement to be true, only 2% of all small businesses nationwide would net over 250,000 a year. That’s false on the face of it.
