What About The Debt?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Exactly…

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.

162

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Exactly…

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]

I am just looking at the numbers. Here is another source based on 2007 data. It says 4% would be effected by the removal of Bush tax cuts.

What I gather is going on from some reading is that by saying you will hurt small business with this tax increases, it makes people think of little start up mom and pop shops when really based on the number of small business filing that way, there are very few actually turning a final profit over 250k a year after all costs have been deducted from their raw earnings.

This point actually does lend some weight to the Republican argument against the tax increase in that the 4% are supposedly employing 98% of people employed by small businesses per the above reference.

So in that light I would say the Dem argument that it effects a small portion of small business is true, but its the bullshit argument they put out because its true and easy to understand for the masses. But they must be aware that the 4% +/- some error account for all the small business job creation, so they probably believe a 3% bump to income tax isn’t devastating, they can afford it and taxes are not the primary factor in hiring more employees.

All the same its a negative for that 4%. To be honest most start up small un-traded companies I have acquired work through have not turned yearly profits and instead were usually growing through reinvestment by venture capitalists and profits going directly into growth and product development to stay competitive. This is in the tech industry. I am curious where they fall in this scheme.

One solution would just be to allow small businesses filing in this manner to petition for the tax break as long as they are employing workers. If the Obama and his supporters on this really believe there are still significant portion of non-businesses making that amount of money who aren’t employing anyone.

I’ve never heard a CEO bitch that they were gonna lay some people off because their taxes went up a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year. Its always the same burn-rate pie chart of ratio of income payed out to employees versus other items. If the employee burn-rate gets too high versus the income and other expenses, like over 50%, usually means they are gonna shit can some people. But I am no business major either so I can’t speak to what level taxes factor in.

The difference between pre-tax break and what they are paying now could have almost no effect on their hiring. The calculator I posted earlier, showing the different tax proposals coming out to hundreds of dollars a year different with the 3% bump to 250K, if that is anywhere near accurate this is just silly to argue about.

The main effect of this wouldn’t be a burden to the companies, it would just piss people off who know they are being taxed unfairly compared to other countries. Still with all the tax breaks and accounting going on I find it seriously hard to believe they couldn’t find a way to negate this minor additional expense…

If they are really pissed about the income tax level I would think they would be bitching now because even at the Bush levels I believe we are taxing the shit of 250k earnings versus some other countries.

163

[quote]StolyElit wrote:

I am just looking at the numbers. Here is another source based on 2007 data. It says 4% would be effected by the removal of Bush tax cuts.

What I gather is going on from some reading is that by saying you will hurt small business with this tax increases, it makes people think of little start up mom and pop shops when really based on the number of small business filing that way, there are very few actually turning a final profit over 250k a year after all costs have been deducted from their raw earnings.

This point actually does lend some weight to the Republican argument against the tax increase in that the 4% are supposedly employing 98% of people employed by small businesses per the above reference.

So in that light I would say the Dem argument that it effects a small portion of small business is true, but its the bullshit argument they put out because its true and easy to understand for the masses. But they must be aware that the 4% +/- some error account for all the small business job creation, so they probably believe a 3% bump to income tax isn’t devastating, they can afford it and taxes are not the primary factor in hiring more employees.

All the same its a negative for that 4%. To be honest most start up small un-traded companies I have acquired work through have not turned yearly profits and instead were usually growing through reinvestment by venture capitalists and profits going directly into growth and product development to stay competitive. This is in the tech industry. I am curious where they fall in this scheme.

One solution would just be to allow small businesses filing in this manner to petition for the tax break as long as they are employing workers. If the Obama and his supporters on this really believe there are still significant portion of non-businesses making that amount of money who aren’t employing anyone.

I’ve never heard a CEO bitch that they were gonna lay some people off because their taxes went up a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year. Its always the same burn-rate pie chart of ratio of income payed out to employees versus other items. If the employee burn-rate gets too high versus the income and other expenses, like over 50%, usually means they are gonna shit can some people. But I am no business major either so I can’t speak to what level taxes factor in.

The difference between pre-tax break and what they are paying now could have almost no effect on their hiring. The calculator I posted earlier, showing the different tax proposals coming out to hundreds of dollars a year different with the 3% bump to 250K, if that is anywhere near accurate this is just silly to argue about.

The main effect of this wouldn’t be a burden to the companies, it would just piss people off who know they are being taxed unfairly compared to other countries. Still with all the tax breaks and accounting going on I find it seriously hard to believe they couldn’t find a way to negate this minor additional expense…

If they are really pissed about the income tax level I would think they would be bitching now because even at the Bush levels I believe we are taxing the shit of 250k earnings versus some other countries.
[/quote]

Did you even read your own link?

One more time, most small businesses are either an “S” or an “LLC” corporation. If they are not incorporated that means that they have a DBA, either of the three forms are taxed as income flowing through to the person. This will devastate small business which hires 65% of all new people in the work force. This WILL send us into another recession. It is the worst idea that Obama has had among many really bad ideas. It doesn’t matter why he’s doing it, inexperience, far left agenda, trying deliberately to make more people dependent on government. The fact remains that this WILL cause another recession. Even Bill Clinton didn’t think that it was a good idea to remove the Bush tax cuts from ANYONE this early.

In addition to hitting small business hard it will also take money off the table of investors who make more than the 250-K. Why in the ever lovin world would we want to do that in the middle of the weakest recovery since the great depression?

And I want the T Nation Secretary Mufasa to write my prediction down I am absolutely certain of what I am saying.

164

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your guy was elected the other night but do you really expect him to focus on the debt since he was the one who raised it to such a lofty level?

And how do we lower the debt, or don’t you think it’s a problem.

Discuss.[/quote]
Hi Zeb:Im a Canadian and we are in the same debt.Zeb,it seem’s the whole world is in debt.Except.China apparently the usa debt is held by China.There is alway’s money in canada to raise the salarie’s and bonuses of the party faithful(WE have 3-party’s in Canada) Conservative,Liberal and the New democratic party.The conservatives/REpulican’s hold power in canada.The only thing regarding the conservative’s is economic.We have universal Health care and for the most part it’s Excellent.We pay higher taxes,but we get good social safety net. thank’s john

165

[quote]johnny k53 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your guy was elected the other night but do you really expect him to focus on the debt since he was the one who raised it to such a lofty level?

And how do we lower the debt, or don’t you think it’s a problem.

Discuss.[/quote]
Hi Zeb:Im a Canadian and we are in the same debt.Zeb,it seem’s the whole world is in debt.Except.China apparently the usa debt is held by China.There is alway’s money in canada to raise the salarie’s and bonuses of the party faithful(WE have 3-party’s in Canada) Conservative,Liberal and the New democratic party.The conservatives/REpulican’s hold power in canada.The only thing regarding the conservative’s is economic.We have universal Health care and for the most part it’s Excellent.We pay higher taxes,but we get good social safety net. thank’s john[/quote]

But you do not have a massive military the way we do (not that you need one).

You can do free healthcare and free college, but you cannot have a military industrial complex as big as ours, which is why you don’t go pissing off people trying to change their ideology.

The moment a political candidate talks about changing ideology in a foreign country, he should be chased off the stage naked.

166

[quote]MaximusB wrote:But you do not have a massive military the way we do (not that you need one).

You can do free healthcare and free college, but you cannot have a military industrial complex as big as ours, which is why you don’t go pissing off people trying to change their ideology.

The moment a political candidate talks about changing ideology in a foreign country, he should be chased off the stage naked. [/quote]

And you talk of changing this and it becomes “why do you hate freedom, why do you hate the troops, don’t you remember 9/11, etc.” Love it or leave it! You even think of cutting into the almost 700 billion we spent last year and you’re basically considered a member of Al Qaeda to most.

167

[quote]johnny k53 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your guy was elected the other night but do you really expect him to focus on the debt since he was the one who raised it to such a lofty level?

And how do we lower the debt, or don’t you think it’s a problem.

Discuss.[/quote]
Hi Zeb:Im a Canadian and we are in the same debt.Zeb,it seem’s the whole world is in debt.Except.China apparently the usa debt is held by China.There is alway’s money in canada to raise the salarie’s and bonuses of the party faithful(WE have 3-party’s in Canada) Conservative,Liberal and the New democratic party.The conservatives/REpulican’s hold power in canada.The only thing regarding the conservative’s is economic.We have universal Health care and for the most part it’s Excellent.We pay higher taxes,but we get good social safety net. thank’s john[/quote]

One of my employee’s relatives lives up in Alberta Canada and despises the socialized medicine. The hospital there took her underage son to Montreal without her permission or even knowledge. When she found out about it and complained they said that when he came in for treatment he more or less became a ward of the state.

And this type of thing is headed our way and I dread it.