Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's amazing many small business owners aren't as smart as you. ---sarc
Many small business owners were interviewed on ABC and stated how much their taxes would increase and how they would cut their staff to compensate.
What were you saying ?
I'm a partner of a small corporation (a multispecialty medical group). The expiration of the Bush tax cuts has zero effect on our corporation. That's because we have zero retained earnings at the end of the year. We pay out all our earnings to all our partners. So, my personal income taxes may go up, but then again from 35% to 39.6% isn't the disaster that you are making it out to be. We've been there before in the 1990s and we got rich, thank you very much. Besides, the increase only applies to income above $250k. That 1st $250K of my income will still be under the Bush tax rates. So yeah, even us "rich folks" making more than 250k will benefit from Obama's proposal to keep the under $250K tax rates unchanged.
Many small business owners were interviewed on ABC and stated how much their taxes would increase and how they would cut their staff to compensate.
This information is useless. How many people were interviewed? Were the interviews random? What percentage stated this? How many actually understand the tax code, etc. But regardless, one just needs to think about business for a few minutes to realize that it does not make much sense. Cutting your staff to compensate for reduced after-tax income makes little sense. After all, unless your stuff is sitting idle with their thumb in their rear, a reduction in staff is going to reduce revenue and hence the owner's income.
The only businesses that may have a small issue are those that are pass-through entities that retain a lot of earnings. But these businesses can solve the problem by being taxed as a C-corp, in fact they are stupid for not doing that already.
If anything higher marginal tax rates will encourage businesses to hire and invest, that is precisely why the US had marginal tax rates of 70%+ between 1920 and 1980. And yet, special interests are creating propaganda about a 39% marginal rate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac
What were you saying ?
Exactly what I said before, what is commonly believed by the average Joe (because its stated in the media) is nonsense. Business owners that state it are either being dishonest or are just incompetent.
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,061 posts, read 4,135,306 times
Reputation: 8190
my brothers and I own a small construction business~ only sell about $5 million per year~ have about 10 full time workers~ hired 3 more this year because of tax incentives and best sales in years. But to get to point where Obama's plan to tax those incomes over 250,000 we would have to triple ( or more) our business. Guess we don't qualify as the normal small business owner. That would take what to me is a pretty large business!
Most of the scare tactics about small businesses being affected by Obama's plans are just that~ the small businesses that they keep talking about (mom and pop businesses) will not be affected at all!
Most of the scare tactics about small businesses being affected by Obama's plans are just that~ the small businesses that they keep talking about (mom and pop businesses) will not be affected at all!
Yeah, most people don't know that "small business" is loosely defined and includes businesses that are far removed from simple mom and pops.
Its also amusing to hear the people making over $250k/year try to identify with the average Joe despite the fact that their income is greater than 98% of the nation. At some point this smugness can really backfire.
Tell you what, I probably pay more in taxes than you have ever earned in your life. I happen to be in the 35% tax bracket, so unless you make more than me (doubtful), you can pretty much assume that I have been subsidizing you all this time.
Yeah because during his first term, Clinton was busy cleaning up the mess left behind by Reagan and Bush Sr.
Well then, don't use roads and bridges, don't call police or firemen for protection, don't use the courts if you ever have to sue somebody, don't use the fruits of medical/scientific research by the NIH or public universities which you use to improve your life.....etc etc
Actually the spoiled child here is you. You are the one who takes advantage of public roads, bridges, police, military, etc paid for by other taxpayers, yet you don't want to pay your share for these benefits. Now go. Go back to your mommy. It's bottlefeeding time.
Point out where I said I didn't want to pay taxes at all??
There is a reason for government and some services but it's gotten out of hand with necessity. The gubment is here to serve us, not us serve it.
Whoever has paid more taxes or not big deal. Don't really care if you did or not.
Clinton by the way did bugger all in his 1st term other than signing onto the Republicans agenda in 1995.
I'll believe business owners who appear onTV, give their name , name of business and town before I'll believe an anonymous poster on an internet site.
That's because you've never actually owned a business yourself. If you did, you would understand how small businesses are organized and how they actually report earnings. And how the Bush tax cuts expiring have zero impact on small corporations like the one I am a shareholder of.
I'll believe business owners who appear onTV, give their name , name of business and town before I'll believe an anonymous poster on an internet site.
Sadly, this is the problem with people today. Instead of actually thinking about matters, they just appeal to authority. To make matters worse, the authority in this case is not even real. The station just looked for some guy that said what they wanted to hear, because you know in America both sides of every issue are magically equally correct.
Anyhow, you don't have to believe me, you can deduce what I'm saying from the tax code. Now perhaps you know nothing about the tax code, but then I'd suggest withholding a position on this issue until you understand the basics, you know....like how businesses pay for wages with pre-tax dollars.
Point out where I said I didn't want to pay taxes at all??
There is a reason for government and some services but it's gotten out of hand with necessity. The gubment is here to serve us, not us serve it.
Whoever has paid more taxes or not big deal. Don't really care if you did or not.
Clinton by the way did bugger all in his 1st term other than signing onto the Republicans agenda in 1995.
You're just regurgitating the same right wing talking points. Get lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I happen to be in the 35% tax bracket, so unless you make more than me (doubtful), you can pretty much assume that I have been subsidizing you all this time.
Don't really care if you did or not. 
