Huge Republican mistake

[ptif219]

Bush gave billions to the biggest companies in the world so they could make sure their employees got their million dollar bonuses. Obama saved union jobs.

Bush gave tax cuts to those that paid taxes. Obama gave tax money to Unions that gave him millions to get elected.

 

[ptif219]

How many or what percentage of small businesses report income in the top income brackets?

Growthology: An Honest Take on Taxes and Small Business

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Growthology: An Honest Take on Taxes and Small Business

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.

So, apparently, the answer is that only 2-3% of small businesses are in the topmost brackets even though this small group of small businesses account for 48% of the income.
When it comes to issue of creating jobs / hurting job creation, it may be that the raw number of small businesses, rather than their income, could be a more influential factor.

Which group is more likely to hire more people in raw numbers? The 2 or 3 % or the remaining 97-98%?

If the 2-3% are going to hire as many people as the other 97% combined, then the argument about it hurting job growth seems spot on.
However, if the 97% of small businesses are likely to hire more people total than than the 3%, then the objection that the tax increase would "hurt job growth in the private sector" seems misguided.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Republican hard stand on not rolling back tax cuts for those who earn over $250,000 is a game changer, makes them look like the party of the rich, but only if the Democrats take advantage of it with a media blitz.

ricksfolly

wrong-people are realizing that Obama engages in class warfare and that Obama whined about the Bush tax cuts and now is saying some are good but others are bad based on class warfare.

the GOP's message is everyone should get tax cuts rather than encouraging the masses to expect the rich to keep paying more and more taxes

 

[TurtleDude]

You fell for their spin. They are just protecting the wealthy. Tax cuts for the rich will do abosolutely nothing to protect jobs and small businesses. They won't hire more people or expand their businesses. They will just add to their wealth.

so why is it that the ultra rich tend to be dems?

will tax hikes on the rich protect jobs and small businesses

you sound rather envious

 

[TurtleDude]

If they are making over a quarter million dollars a year........yes they can afford a 3% tax increase. Someone is going to have to pay for Bush's wars and the debt he created. It amazes me how some people fall for all that BS the republicans put out. You do know its just going back to the rates before Bush destroyed our economy, don't you?

your math sucks-a 3% rate increase is more like a 10% increase in tax payments and if someone is mostly living on investments the tax will triple

 

[TurtleDude]

No its to pay for the massive spending of the last administration.

so why aren't you in favor of everyone paying more taxes. the top 2% didn't vote BUsh in it was the masses

 

[ricksfolly]

The wealthy already pay plenty. Why do liberals hate success?

It's not about the rich or trashing liberals. It's about people who need help to find jobs, fifteen million of them.

ricksfolly

 

[TurtleDude]

It's not about the rich or trashing liberals. It's about people who need help to find jobs, fifteen million of them.

ricksfolly

and jacking up taxes on the rich sure won't help them

 

[TurtleDude]

So, apparently, the answer is that only 2-3% of small businesses are in the topmost brackets even though this small group of small businesses account for 48% of the income.
When it comes to issue of creating jobs / hurting job creation, it may be that the raw number of small businesses, rather than their income, could be a more influential factor.

Which group is more likely to hire more people in raw numbers? The 2 or 3 % or the remaining 97-98%?

If the 2-3% are going to hire as many people as the other 97% combined, then the argument about it hurting job growth seems spot on.
However, if the 97% of small businesses are likely to hire more people total than than the 3%, then the objection that the tax increase would "hurt job growth in the private sector" seems misguided.

is fairness dependent on numbers?

and what is the long term effect of telling the majority of voters that they don't have to pay anything additional for an ever expanding deficit because the people who already pay more than half the taxes will have to keep paying more and more?

 

[MaggieD]

Shows you weren't paying attention. Obama and Dems offered a compromise to allow businesses to write off capital investments. The Republicans turned it down. That means this is entirely about making the wealthy even wealthier, not about business.

The Democrats would be idiots not to take advantage of this at this point in the game.

No one is sure what will stimulate the economy. What will work. No one.

The only thing we do know is that raising taxes on anyone is risky. Why are Democrats so determined to do so? It's risky. It makes no difference in the scheme of things. Why are they so determined to suck up to blue-collar America?

 

[TurtleDude]

No one is sure what will stimulate the economy. What will work. No one.

The only thing we do know is that raising taxes on anyone is risky. Why are Democrats so determined to do so? It's risky. It makes no difference in the scheme of things. Why are they so determined to suck up to blue-collar America?

its how dems get their power

they tell the many that the many can get us much spending from the government as they want and the rich will pay for it

they also (even though dem elite tend to be richer than GOP elite and have wealth from more "dubious" sources) like to convince losers that they will punish the winners

 

[USA_1]

so why aren't you in favor of everyone paying more taxes. the top 2% didn't vote BUsh in it was the masses

Because the recession hurts the middle class more than the rich. The republicans doubled the debt in 8 years. Someone has to pay for those wars and bailouts.

 

[USA_1]

No one is sure what will stimulate the economy. What will work. No one.

The only thing we do know is that raising taxes on anyone is risky. Why are Democrats so determined to do so? It's risky. It makes no difference in the scheme of things. Why are they so determined to suck up to blue-collar America?

It does make a difference to the deficit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because the recession hurts the middle class more than the rich. The republicans doubled the debt in 8 years. Someone has to pay for those wars and bailouts.

it was the average voters who supported that and then the average voters who voted in spendthrift obama

if these voters never have to pay more taxes they never will have an incentive to cut spending nor will the politicians who pander to them

it certainly was not the rich (who split down the middle since some rich are rich because of the government vs some who are rich despite it) who drive this irresponsible spending

its time for those who push the spending to start paying for it

 

[TurtleDude]

It does make a difference to the deficit.

actually making only the rich pay more makes the deficit worse since the majority has no reason to ever stop the insanity when only the "rich" have to pay more taxes

 

[ptif219]

So, apparently, the answer is that only 2-3% of small businesses are in the topmost brackets even though this small group of small businesses account for 48% of the income.
When it comes to issue of creating jobs / hurting job creation, it may be that the raw number of small businesses, rather than their income, could be a more influential factor.

Which group is more likely to hire more people in raw numbers? The 2 or 3 % or the remaining 97-98%?

If the 2-3% are going to hire as many people as the other 97% combined, then the argument about it hurting job growth seems spot on.
However, if the 97% of small businesses are likely to hire more people total than than the 3%, then the objection that the tax increase would "hurt job growth in the private sector" seems misguided.

Look again 48%

 

[ptif219]

Because the recession hurts the middle class more than the rich. The republicans doubled the debt in 8 years. Someone has to pay for those wars and bailouts.

And Obama will triple it

 

[ptif219]

It does make a difference to the deficit.

It will not Obama and the dems will just spend more

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Look again 48%

I know it's 48%. the top 2 or 3% of small businesses account for 48% of small business income.

To quote directly from your source:

According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.​

48% of the net income. Net income is something different than the number of small businesses.

If you can't see the distinction there's not much farther the conversation can go.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

is fairness dependent on numbers?

and what is the long term effect of telling the majority of voters that they don't have to pay anything additional for an ever expanding deficit because the people who already pay more than half the taxes will have to keep paying more and more?

Here we deviate from the previous point under discussion about how it would affect job growth.
Is it fair? It may not be. It may be. Fair depends a great deal on the narrative used to frame the situation and is fairly subjective.
Because of that, I willing concede that it is fair or isn't fair, whichever you like.

I think at issue currently is the short to mid term effects on a shaky economy.
I agree with your larger point, though. I was against the borrow and spend policies that helped put us here. At some point the bill finally does come due.
At the moment we seem to need action to get our momentum back.

If I remember correctly the CBO ranked the tax cuts extension/expiration as one of the proposals without as much effect. But it's an emotionally compelling thing for many despite its actual practical importance. So politicians run with it in an election season.

I'd rather they focus on some of the more interesting and effective measures like the payroll holiday.

 

[ptif219]

I know it's 48%. the top 2 or 3% of small businesses account for 48% of small business income.

To quote directly from your source:

According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.​

48% of the net income. Net income is something different than the number of small businesses.

If you can't see the distinction there's not much farther the conversation can go.

So 48% will be taxed and have less to expand there business

 

[TurtleDude]

Here we deviate from the previous point under discussion about how it would affect job growth.
Is it fair? It may not be. It may be. Fair depends a great deal on the narrative used to frame the situation and is fairly subjective.
Because of that, I willing concede that it is fair or isn't fair, whichever you like.

I think at issue currently is the short to mid term effects on a shaky economy.
I agree with your larger point, though. I was against the borrow and spend policies that helped put us here. At some point the bill finally does come due.
At the moment we seem to need action to get our momentum back.

If I remember correctly the CBO ranked the tax cuts extension/expiration as one of the proposals without as much effect. But it's an emotionally compelling thing for many despite its actual practical importance. So politicians run with it in an election season.

I'd rather they focus on some of the more interesting and effective measures like the payroll holiday.

we need to end the myth that most people can continue to get government goodies and not have to make any sacrifice for their delivery

many people of my late' father's circle of associates and friends are moving their sizeable assets out of the USA. the more the wealth of the top people is used to buy the votes of net tax consumers, the more this will happen and one day the house of cards is gonna fall

I'm looking for a place to retire to and in the meantime I hope the cards don't collapse before I can leave cuz the body count's gonna be real high I suspect

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So 48% will be taxed and have less to expand there business

2-3% of small businesses who account for 48% of small business income may have their tax cuts expire if the tax cuts are not extended. If those tax cuts are not extended, they will have a greater tax bill.

Do you happen to know if these businesses are likely to hire as many people as all the other small businesses? Because the difference in job creation is the difference between how many people the 2-3% of small businesses are likely to hire if their tax cuts are extended as well. That's it. That number, whatever it may be, is all the impact that allowing those tax cuts to expire will have on job creation.

It would have been much preferable if in the Bush years actual permanent tax cuts had been passed. The reason permanent tax cuts were not passed was because the cuts would had to've been offset by spending cuts. The politicians were to chicken**** to do so. Instead they merely passed the buck for a few years while scoring political points for cutting taxes (prob'ly yet another election season scam). But, like so many things, politicans are rewarded for short term gains even when those gains are bought dearly with long term expenses and harm.
Politicians aren't rewarded for doing good by America. They're rewarded by giving loot to their campaign contributors and ideologue bases.

The problem is that our system is fundamentally broken. We're getting exactly the kind of government our system rewards.
Until we change our system, we'll get more of the same. Sure we can choose which politican we have in charge of screwing our country--would you like to eat **** with lumps or without?

The primary change that could help us is one that no one will be rewarded for making-- artificial persons should not be allowed tolobby our government. They should instead be forced to lobby the electorate. Voter ignorance (and worse) allows these horrible things to happen. No one has a realistic interest in providing an education to the electorate, not even the electorate ourselves.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

we need to end the myth that most people can continue to get government goodies and not have to make any sacrifice for their delivery

I am all for it.

many people of my late' father's circle of associates and friends are moving their sizeable assets out of the USA.

Something I did for myself and my family several years back. Though our assets are not sizable by any means. Missed the 1st big crash of the dollar. Looked like I made amazing returns for a while, greater than 20%, but it was really just the dollar dropping.

the more the wealth of the top people is used to buy the votes of net tax consumers, the more this will happen and one day the house of cards is gonna fall

The tax cuts that are under discussion are an example of what we're against. They were passed as temporary tax cuts because to pass permanent ones politicians would had to've found off setting spending cuts. Instead we cut the taxes, increased the spending and borrowed with interest to cover the difference.
But the bill always comes due. Always.

I'm looking for a place to retire to and in the meantime I hope the cards don't collapse before I can leave cuz the body count's gonna be real high I suspect

An acquaintance of mine involved in some sort of int'l financing mumbo jumbo, another Eli actually, used the phrase "extinction level events" a few years back just as everything was starting to unfold.