Posted by Tina
The President was out stumping for higher tax rates for the rich today when he said the following:
“I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that’s doing so well to give up that tax break….I don’t think that’s real radical.”
I”ll bet that most people would agree with the President. In fact, I imagine those jet owners would agree with him too. But there’s a problem in his remark (or is it trickery?). Most of the people who will pay higher taxes under this rising tax rate will actually be hit hard because they are not jet owners….not even close!
According to the Wall Street Journal jet owners spend a pretty penny purchasing, running, and maintaining their jets (citing Jay Duckson at Central Business Jets):
New Citation CJ (entry level jet)-$5 million. Annual operating costs (fuel, hangar space, pilots) about $500,000.
Cheapest Used Jet-$100,000 to $500,000. Annual operating costs (hangar, pilots, mechanics, fuel) about $1 million a year.
Those numbers could be low by my estimation. There are fees, taxes, insurances and required maintenance inspections that would add to those pricey figures. But even without that who can afford such a bill? Do the math ladies and gentlemen. The vast majority of people who make $250,000.00 a year are not living in this high powered jet setter world. They are doing their best to make ends meet as inflation rears its ugly head, gas prices head north, and health care costs skyrocket. After paying their monthly bills they are challenged to provide school supplies and new clothes for their growing kids, not to mention orthodontia, piano lessons, and sports. They are struggling to put enough money aside for their own retirement, college fees and books, and family vacations. Some have lost their jobs…and/or are upside down in their houses. Most have seen investments take a pretty big hit.
People who can afford the jetsetters lifestyle have a net worth in the multi-millions and pull in much more than $250K a year. Yet the President would have us believe that his tax policy (sticking it to the so-called rich) won’t hurt anyone. He would have us believe that only the very wealthy, jet owner people will be tapped for higher taxes! It’s just not true.
The President is either terribly out of touch with average Americans or he is willfully engaging in trickery and deception.
Forbes has the full fact checking skinny on other outlandish assertions made by the President today.
Afraid this is just another example of Mr. Obamas speaking out of both side of his mouth again. According to Beltway Confidential today publishing a 2009 AP article his stimulus plan included tax breaks for businesses to buy the planes.
Read it and weep.
=======
From the Associated Press in 2009:
Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.
The incentive — first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks — sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/flashback-ap-stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sale#ixzz1QjUsqQYV
This is a stretch Tina.
My family lives on less than $40,000, and we do okay. We even have a savings account, and we own real estate. We’re sending one to college, and planning for the 15 year old. And no, we don’t get ANY financial help – you literally have to be on welfare to get fee “forgiveness” at Butte College.
$250,000 a year is a lot of money. We actually made that bracket one year when we sold a house. We paid $7000 in taxes – the full monty, because we didn’t have enough write-offs. That is hardly onerous.
I don’t like taxes, and I don’t like Obama, and I can say that.
OK, if they give up the corporate jets, will the Prez quit jetting around for fundraisers on Air Force One? After all, turnabout is fair play . . . . .
Thanks Peggy…terrific memory! This speaks precisely to the dishonesty aspect of the Presidents remarks.
Washington has been playing these games to manipulate the public for much too long and we the people are done with it. We want honest, simple, straightforward tax laws and forget the rhetoric!
Juanita I appreciate what you are saying and applaud your efforts.
Americans need jobs. Small business provides something like 80% of all jobs in America. Small business owners often fall into this tax bracket. The profit they make is used for personal expenses but it also supports their business going forward. Small business owners have to be good managers if they have any chance at all of increasing their business (and hiring new people). Raising taxes on small business owners now is nonproductive and will only act as a deterent to job growth.
Many of the people who earn this amount of money live in high rent districts because that’s where their job is and their expenses are higher because of it. High powered jobs require a nice vehicle and expensive clothing. But beyond those higher expenses, a class oriented tax structure fails to consider personal circumstances. There are people that have three or four kids to put through college, or they are caring for a handicapped child which can be very expensive, or they are managing the care of their elderly parents…or, God forbid, all three at once!
I don’t know when you purchased your real estate. We were fortunate to have bought before prices went way up. If you boght a new house just prior to the housing crash your payment, insurance and taxes will be pretty high.
The government does not care about these circumstances; decisions you made based on earnings and expenses but also on the rules the government made. The government is quite willing to jerk people around and put burdens on their lives just so they can have MORE to spend. There’s something wrong with that picture.
The point is they are not managing our money well at all, as you are yours. They are squandering our money and boldly demanding more from a class of people they know they can exploit because a lesser class will not object. They are playing word games and using trickery (deception) to get us to go along with them.
I wish our government (and more Americans) had your budget management skills, Juanita. But they will never even try, much less do what is right, as long as $7000.00 of the money you and your husband scraped and saved for is so easily taken from you.
GOVERNMENT BIG SPENDING HAS GOT TO STOP!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
National debt today…$14,351,346,057,601.83
(We’re adding nearly 4 billion a day to this number.)
Each citizen’s share (not each adult…each citizen):
$46,168.32.
We need to grow the economy and provide jobs (which increases the tax base). The only way to do that successfully is with private money invested in the private sector. The longer we allow the bozo’s in Congress to take from the American people the less chance there is that people with $40,000.00 a year will be asked to sacrifice so that more can be distributed by the big government central planners.
One more thing. Business people like certainty. A simplified tax structure that business can count on to remain the same will cause certainty and allow them to plan for the future. These nutty games do just the opposite. Your local In and Out burger franchiser is not a private jet owner…the President is a deceiver.
J…good point…those golf games are a bit too la dee da as well. Given the state of economy should he be indulging in such expensive frivolity?
I mean really…if the government is going to tell people how they can live via the tax code shouldn’t the head commrade be acting as the example?
I agree with Juanita. Tina, your attempts to paint people making $250,000 a year as somehow middle-class or even struggling is frankly insulting, and far removed from reality. You’re ignoring the fact that $250,000 a year is FIVE TIMES the median income in America, and that less than 2% of Americans make this much money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
You are also incorrect when you say that small business owners “often” fall into this tax bracket. That number is also 2%. That is not “often.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/16/barack-obama/most-small-businesses-wont-be-subject-to-obamas-ta/
If a person is making more than 98% of his fellow Americans, then that person is rich, end of story. And if that person is still, as you say, “struggling” and “doing their best to make ends meet,” than that person is fiscally irresponsible.
Well, I absolutely agree the spending has to stop, thanks for saying.
Something funny – the only people I know in the $250,000 are public workers. Think that has something to do with our problem?
Chris: “…your attempts to paint people making $250,000 a year as somehow middle-class or even struggling is frankly insulting, and far removed from reality.”
Oh really? A family with gross pay of $3833.33 per month (46K/yr) pays Federal taxes of $324.71; SS $237.67; Mcare $55.58 leaving them with $3215.37 for other expenses assuming no state tax or pension deductions.
The national median home price peaked around $200,000. So let us assume this family purchased the median home. A 5% down payment of $10,000 leaves them with a mortgage of $1200.00/mo (30-fixed) with taxes and insurance at $333.00. The total is $1533.00 representing 47% of their pay. That’s your middle class in Chico California.
Lets look at another location. A family in the Bay Area that had to buy a similar home would pay at least $800,000.00. (not kiddingthe house I owned in Pleasanton, California in 1984, a 4 bed tract home, was selling for well over $1,000,000.00 prior to the crashcant tell you what it would be listed at today.) Using the same interest rate (even without taxes and insurance) the house payment could be as high as $4500.00 a month. (crazy, I know but the price you pay when you work in that area)
A salary of 250K/yr after fed tax ($57,337.50), FICA ($6621.60) and MCARE ($3625.00) leaves $182415.00 a year or about 15K per month.
People that make this kind of money are also usually making estimated quarterly deposits, especially if their income varies widely from year to year. What that means is they will prepay next years taxes. This could be as much as 6K per quarter.
People arrange their lives based on their earnings. Circumstances are different for every family, I didnt mean to imply that a family making $250K wasnt well off but assuming they are extremely wealthy isnt right either. In the case of small business owners the business costs for the following year have to be taken into consideration. They will need operating cash if they are going to stay in business. So that 15K doesn’t go into their pockets.
“…less than 2% of Americans make this much money.”
Hmmmthats about 6 million people but if its no big dealthen what is the big push to raise their taxes? They already carry a very big tax burden, at least 60K just for federal taxesthey are more likely to invest the excess in job creating activity and the amount that a slightly higher rate would generate for government is piddling…which brings us back to my main point.
The president is shamefully using class warfare as a political tactic.
Small businesses will be effected by this tax increase according to CATO:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13037
The President is not being serious about the problems we face. He is instead playing at politics in the worst possible waybeing deceptive to score points with constituents (Its all about HIM)
Another interesting Cato article concludes:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13016
How do you raise GDP? Let the people work, save, and invest. (Signing those trade agreements would also help)
If a person is making more than 98% of his fellow Americans, then that person is rich, end of story.
And you know this because of your vast experience? I suggest you dont know squat. What you know is that someone has more money than you and that makes them rich.
And if that person is still, as you say, “struggling” and “doing their best to make ends meet,” than that person is fiscally irresponsible.
Or they are living their lives, raising their families, carrying the load for half of the country that pays ZERO taxes, and following their dreams…WITH THEIR OWN MONEY WHICH THEY EARNED BY SACRIFICING AND WORKING HARD.
Yes spending has to stop. Our representatives are not there to play Santa with our hard earned dollars.
You have a point on the public workers…not that I begrudge them their pay. But I do think that irresponsible demands through collective bargaining have placed undue burdens on the private sector and created an unholy alliance with a certain political party.
“$250,000 a year is a lot of money. We actually made that bracket one year when we sold a house. We paid $7000 in taxes.”
I’m not sure I believe that Juanita is telling the truth, but if she is … the tax structure in this country wants serious work.
Cause I know somebody who makes a fifth of $250k and paid $7k in income taxes. I have to conclude that this capital gains buggerboo is not quite the buggerboo all you Repugs claim it is.
Where’s me bottle?
Given Libby has climed into the bottle the following needs more comment:
“We paid $7000 in taxes – the full monty, because we didn’t have enough write-offs. That is hardly onerous.”
Given your overall situation in life it is VERY onerous! You paid taxes on the money you used to buy that house. It was a smart investment at the time that should have yielded you a nice tidy sum (to help pay for those college educations!!!) Yet our incredibly bloated government saw fit to take it from you like you were Warren Buffet…it’s obscene!
People we have to start thinking of our money as our personal property before they think they can just take it all from us.
Tina: “Oh really? A family with gross pay of $3833.33 per month (46K/yr) pays Federal taxes of $324.71; SS $237.67; Mcare $55.58 leaving them with $3215.37 for other expenses assuming no state tax or pension deductions.”
Tina, why did you use the number 46K/yr? That’s less than 250K/yr, so how is it relevant?
“And you know this because of your vast experience?”
I know this because I learned basic math in first grade.
“I suggest you dont know squat. What you know is that someone has more money than you and that makes them rich.”
I never said anything resembling that, and you’re being ridiculous. As I made clear, they aren’t rich because they make more than me; they’re rich because they make more than 98% of Americans.
If that doesn’t meet your definition of “rich,” than your definition is so subjective as to be completely useless. One cannot hope to have a fact-based discussion about this topic with someone unwilling to concede that the top 2% of earners constitutes the wealthy class. Refusing to do so is absurd.
I am not sure how Michael D. Tanner figured out that “nearly half of all small-business income would be hit by the proposed tax increase.” He doesn’t cite any source for that claim or show any of his own work, unlike the Politifact article I posted which cites the Tax Policy Center.
“The president is shamefully using class warfare as a political tactic.”
Given how one of your ideological heroes deployed the term “welfare queens,” a classist and derogatory slur if there ever was one, you’re not really in a position to lecture about class warfare. Of course, in Republican-land, it’s only class warfare if the rich are being asked to sacrifice; slashing services for the poor, all while putting them down and calling them names, is just good policy, right?
Tina, the portion you just quoted was from Juanita, not Libby. And who are you to tell someone whether their situation is onerous or not?
Chris: “why did you use the number 46K/yr?”
I used it to set up the comparison to the 250K earners in the following paragraphs.
“As I made clear, they aren’t rich because they make more than me; they’re rich because they make more than 98% of Americans.”
They aren’t “rich” at all. Yes they are doing well but the President was implying they could afford to buy a jet…that’s a flat out misrepresentation and extremely deceptive.
“If that doesn’t meet your definition of “rich,” than your definition is so subjective as to be completely useless.”
And your definition is designed to make anyone who makes good money a mark…someone to be exploited by the 98% through class envy and politcs. That’s not something to be proud of.
“One cannot hope to have a fact-based discussion about this topic with someone unwilling to concede that the top 2% of earners constitutes the wealthy class.”
The topic was that Obama is using class warfare to push for tax increases because it’s time for that class to pay their “fair share”. That top 2% already pays a high percentage of the total tax bill. According to heritage:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
That 1% is probably made up of the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates types who are in fact “the rich”. When you consider that almost half of all households doesn’t pay any tax and some of those who do are still subsidized that word fair loses all meaning.
“Of course, in Republican-land, it’s only class warfare if the rich are being asked to sacrifice…”
I’ll let you off the hook because of your age but you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
In Republican land (stareting about 20 years or so ago) the time had come to stop taking shots to the head without punching back after fifty years of progressive theft and onerous mischaracterization. You have reaped what your forebears have sewn.
“slashing services for the poor, all while putting them down and calling them names…”
Shows how deeply you have dived into the progressive cesspool. There isn’t any need to “slash” services to the truly needy…that’s just leftist claptrap. There’s enough fraud and waste in those programs to survive a 10% cut without hurting anyone who needs it. If it’s possible for the military, it’s possible in other departments as well.
Also reform of the SS and MCARE systems have been suggested for at least three decades and Democrats refuse to even consider it. These programs are causing most of the problem. Changing how future generations plan for and pay for these programs would make a big difference. Democrats won’t touch it becasue it would mean a loss of power. More shameful crap.
“…is just good policy, right?”
No it’s BS…but it’s the game the progressives chose to play. It can stop but not until they are willing to give it up. It’s a Mexican standoff but from my perspective better than the fifty years during which being conservative and well mannered brought us all of the unsustainable social programs that are now drowning the entire country…most especially the poor!
Pull your head out, Chris. Even the wealthy don’t have enough to sustain these programs over time.
And by the way, Welfare Queen” is not a description of a person who truly needs help. “Welfare Queen” is used to describe someone who could work but chooses to exploit the system instead. They are healthy and they’ve had the benefit of public education. Your refusal to see the difference confounds me. Our laws encourage this behavior. Your misplaced sympathy does too. That’s nothing to be proud of either.
Chris: “Tina, the portion you just quoted was from Juanita, not Libby.”
Yes I forgot to designate before commenting…apologies to Juanita and others for my lack of clarity.
“And who are you to tell someone whether their situation is onerous or not?”
I am an American citizen with full free speech rights. That entitles me to my opinion and the expression thereof. In my opinion making someone like Juanita pay a premium for the money she realized through the sale of her home is onerous! (greedy, thoughtless, creepy, and overly punishing)
Government doesn’t care what the circumstances are for the people they ask to pay…the bloodsucking impersoanl jerks are only interested in MORE MONEY so they can do MORE SPENDING…so they can MAKE MORE PROMISES OF GOODIES….so they can STAY IN POWER!
YES!!! I am one disgusted citizen.
Libby, I respect your comments, I never come back at you with “I don’t know if Libby is telling the truth.” If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s somebody who insinuates you’re a liar because they don’t like what you’re saying.
Some people just live to kill the discourse.
“Something funny – the only people I know in the $250,000 are public workers. Think that has something to do with our problem?”
This is the trouble with basing public policy on personal perception. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only people in your neck of the woods getting checks for that kind of money are, in fact, university presidents, and subsidized ranchers.
Down in my neck of the woods, all the people I know in that salary range are lawywers and bankers, in the most decidedly private sector.
I too will clarify. I don’t think Juanita was taxed on $250k in income, but on some sum of capital gains (from the sale of the house) … hence the buggerboo appraisal.
And I firmly stand by my assertion that the tax structure in this country wants serious work.
Libby: “I firmly stand by my assertion that the tax structure in this country wants serious work.”
On this we agree. Can’t wait to hear your ideas if you will share…?
Well, maybe for a start, we can concede that you have one university president, and, we can only hope, maybe two dozen ranchers being “compensated” to that degree.
Whereas, down here, any one of dozens of office buildings hold hundreds of hoohahs being compensated to that degree.
So … 40%? … 50% …60% …?
As opposed to the 28% they are currently held to?
Couldn’t you get along on %100k?
I could.
Libby: Couldn’tyou get along on %100K
Sure…but so what? The question on the table is could I get along and still run my business and create a few jobs on that!
You want (we’ll say 50% to make the math simple) for those earning 250K a year, right? So 50% tax rate takes them down to 125K…not bad…state taxes bring that closer to 122Ksubtract FICA and other payroll deductions and youre down to 110Kstill not bad BUT NOT RICH.
Now if this person must pay household expenses and business expenses with this money, which about 6 million people in America must do, were getting closer to the 40K for personal expenses that Juanita lives on. Why should small business owners pay taxes like they were jetsetting millionaires instead of like Juanita? It won’t encourage investment and growth in their businesses and it sure won’t mean more hiring.
More importantly, on a social/moral note…when has America ever been about “making do” and “getting along”?
Was it a mentality of “making do” that caused us to build the most prosperous nation the world has ever known? Was it “getting by” that allowed us to build our great institutions of learning, hospitals, museums, research centers, cities, and infrastructure? Was it a mind set of mediocrity that made America a magnet for people all over the world who long for an opportunity?
Americans have been the exception to that rule. If you want a better America you need to shift your thinking…put some of that energy into demanding more from our citizens, our educational system…and parents. Higher standards would produce a more compentent and self-reliant citizen body. Give Americans the space to become prosperous and we won’t need so many government services.
People who earn $250K are not rich but they would like to be…not just for themselves but for the businesses they can build and the others they can help along the way by offering them a job.
It seems to me that JOBS are what Americans need now more than anything. Americans back at work = a large tax base. With a large tax base we won’t need higher rates on job producers.
Government can play too…by working toward efficiency to make every dollar count. With a little effort the government worker could easily “make do” with 10% less per department. That would be the moral and ethical thing to do. They have a fiduciary responsibility to manage our tax dollars well.
Tina,
It is perfectly reasonable to call the top 2% of earners in this country “rich.” I am honestly amazed that you seem to have a problem with this.
Perhaps you could explain to me how much you think one has to make before they can be considered “rich?”
Or perhaps you believe this term is completely subjective. In which case, as I said before, a fact-based discussion will be impossible.
“In my opinion making someone like Juanita pay a premium for the money she realized through the sale of her home is onerous! (greedy, thoughtless, creepy, and overly punishing)”
And in Juanita’s opinion, this is NOT onerous. Since it’s her life we’re talking about, her opinion carries a lot of weight and yours carries absolutely none.
Chris: “It is perfectly reasonable to call the top 2% of earners in this country “rich.”
Reasonable to a wet behind the ears student who has never made a payroll perhaps…not to me! To someone like me it is not reasonable to lump someone making 250K a year and has a business to run in with Warren Buffet who is one of the worlds billionaires…yet that is what is being suggested. It is also not reasonable to suggest that someone making that amount of money can afford to own his own jet.
“Perhaps you could explain to me how much you think one has to make before they can be considered ‘rich?'”
A rich person, or someone referred to as “wealthy” is capable of buying a jet.
The Presidents deception is ugly on several counts:
1. It creates class envy, setting up division, where the have not’s feel entitled to take through the power of the government that which does not belong to them.
2. Truly wealthy people don’t need to earn money but when they do they couldn’t care less how much they are taxed…it’s all expensed on a balance sheet they may or may not be aware of and doesn’t impact their lives one way or another.
3. Even if you took all the wealth that the wealthy have it wouldn’t solve our problems…that is why they need to tax people that are not rich but are working hard to better their chances.
4. These people, that have been targeted unfairly, don’t spend the money they make just for personal use. They use a big chunk of it to run and grow their businesses. Because they do they also create jobs. This law stifles job growth by punishing the job creators. (That makes this plan stupid with unemployment hovering around 10% and real unemployment closer to 18%)
“Since it’s her life we’re talking about, her opinion carries a lot of weight and yours carries absolutely none.”
Her life was used as an example…my comment was, and I quote: “… making someone like Juanita pay a premium for the money she realized through the sale of her home is onerous! (greedy, thoughtless, creepy, and overly punishing)”
Last time I looked this was still America. Anyone making a few bucks on the sale of a house that doesn’t have millions socked away should be able to save that money or invest it for themselves. If more of us were allowed to save for our futures we wouldn’t need social programs that are so big and burdensome…and people would feel better about themselves and their futures.
I will give you that Juanita has a kind and generous spirit. I doubt that she gave it much thought when this happened. She’s a good citizzen and she paid what was legally due. She might give it a little more thought now. She struggles and saves to pay for her kids to have a higher education while her taxes help pay for others who are only slightly better off than she and who, in some cases, are already getting other subsidies. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
“A rich person, or someone referred to as “wealthy” is capable of buying a jet.”
I was looking for a number, Tina, not something so silly.
Anyway, what would you call a person making $250,000 a year, if not “rich?” You can’t call them “middle-class,” because they are literally nowhere near the middle. They make five times as much as the middle. Would you categorize them as “affluent,” at least?
You may have a point that they shouldn’t be lumped in with the likes of Warren Buffet. Would you suggest a new top income tax bracket? What number would you base that on?
Chris: “I was looking for a number, Tina, not something so silly.”
Then you should take the subject up with the President who made reference to jet owners no less than six times in his most recent demagoguery.
“Would you categorize them as “affluent,” at least?”
Some would qualify as afluent…some would fit squarely in the middle class. As I demonstrated above, numbers can be deceiving depending on location and circumstance.
“Would you suggest a new top income tax bracket? What number would you base that on?”
I would prefer a flat tax (or national sales tax) and much more responsible, limited government.
“Some would qualify as afluent…some would fit squarely in the middle class.”
Tina, this is factually untrue.
As I have pointed out, $250,000 a year is FIVE TIMES the national median income.
I know conservatives are waging a war on basic science, has this now extended to attacking basic math as well?
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Another fact you’ve neglected to point out is that Obama was specifically discussing eliminating tax breaks for jet owners in this speech…he was not being deceptive at all. You are.
Chris: “As I have pointed out, $250,000 a year is FIVE TIMES the national median income.”
And as I have pointed out not all of the money they are taxed on goes into their pockets but instead is used to run their businesss…they may take home as little as $40K a year. (Over the last two my husband and I took considerably less than that…keeping our doors open so as not to shove several more people onto the unemployment rolls…we’re barely making it.)
“I know conservatives are waging a war on basic science, has this now extended to attacking basic math as well?
If you weren’t so certain you had all the answers you’de see there is nothing wrong with my math.
“You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.”
Nor are you…particularly when some facts escape you entirely because of your lack of experience and certainty of superiority.
“Another fact you’ve neglected to point out is that Obama was specifically discussing eliminating tax breaks for jet owners in this speech…he was not being deceptive at all.”
Horsefeathers! The only tax proposal he’s made includes the $200K/$250K figures. If he has changed his mind he should have talked about different numbers. As I wrote in the post:
This was a political speech…aren’t they all with this guy?
“Sure…but so what? The question on the table is could I get along and still run my business and create a few jobs on that!”
Tina, we’re talking about personal income … not business income, not business profits … personal income … that sum of money any business owner sets aside for the keeping of him/herself and family. Anybody who needs more than $100k to get by needs to reassess their priorities.
Any sum that any business owner intends to put back into the business, or any other business, is ENTIRELY ANOTHER MATTER.
Any personal income over $100k … we is coming after … hunker down. Though you really should give some serious thought to my previous post on the subject of comfortable people continuing to live comfortably. It could be different … yes, it could.
Libby: “Tina, we’re talking about personal income … not business income, not business profits … personal income … that sum of money any business owner sets aside for the keeping of him/herself and family.”
Actually Libby small business owners file one tax form, not two. They report and pay taxes on what their business makes. So they could have a profit of 250K but only realize 40K or less for themselves. Yet the tax on high wage earners will treat them like a salaried person that makes an actual 250K.
“Anybody who needs more than $100k to get by needs to reassess their priorities.”
Easy to say for a single woman without children! and you live in an area that has seen some high rent and big commute times. Besides it really is none of your, or our government’s business how private citizens prioritize their lives. The cheek!
“Any sum that any business owner intends to put back into the business, or any other business, is ENTIRELY ANOTHER MATTER.”
Why is it another matter? Tax day is a single day…a snapshot…business continues…well it does if all of the profits aren’t confiscated by an oppressive (Marxist) government.
“Any personal income over $100k … we is coming after … hunker down.”
And there you have it. The thugocracy is in ful bloom. Look for the brown shirts, they will indictrinate your kids to turn you in. The IRSS will be out in force to penalize and punish. The next generation will just forget the formalities and take all of the businesses!
“Though you really should give some serious thought to my previous post on the subject of comfortable people continuing to live comfortably. It could be different … yes, it could.”
You have got to be the busiest busy body E V E R! Not only is it none of your business how anyone else lives, what they have and what they earn is also a matter of PRIVACY! What they earn is their property and government needs to respect that.
Tina: “And as I have pointed out not all of the money they are taxed on goes into their pockets but instead is used to run their businesss…they may take home as little as $40K a year.”
Tina, Libby is right: we are talking about personal income. If you take home less than 250K after business expenses, then you don’t have to worry about moving into the 250K tax bracket, unless you are doing something seriously wrong on your tax forms. From the same Politifact article I cited earlier:
“It’s not clear from the exchange just what Joe means when he says the business “makes” up to $280,000 a year. Is he talking about total revenue? Profits? That’s an important point here and it’s one that Obama and Joe the Plumber never discussed. Based on Obama’s proposals and current tax policy, for Joe’s taxes to rise Joe would have to “make” $250,000 in net profit, after deducting all his expenses: his employees’ pay, his supplies, his truck, his fuel costs, and other legitimate business expenses. He’d have to be an extremely successful plumber.”
Here’s a more recent article that makes essentially the same point:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/17/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-250000-gross-sales-tax-increase/
“Tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that she was willing to accept a compromise as long as all the current tax rates stayed the same for taxpayers of all incomes.
But, she said, she opposed a compromise that would be attached to extending unemployment benefits.
Stephanopoulos then asked why it was okay for the wealthy to get their tax cuts extended, but not okay to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless.
“Well, remember again what this is. It’s a massive tax increase, and it’s on the people who are the job creators,” Bachmann said. “And people want to think that these are millionaires, sitting in leather chairs, lighting their cigars with $100 bills. That’s not what we’re talking about. These are people who, who are carpet layers who maybe employ two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business. They’re the ones that are looking at massive tax increases.”
That’s probably a compelling narrative for Bachmann — big government taxes the little guys. We first fact-checked similar claims during the 2008 election, when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, worried he’d get a tax increase under Obama’s plan if he bought a company that took in around $250,000 a year.
It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now. Here’s why: Plumbers — or any other small business owner — get to deduct their business expenses, so they’d have to be bringing in more than $250,000 in gross sales. The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees’ pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on. (For more details, read chapter 8 of the Tax Guide for Small Business published by the IRS.)
Bachmann said that the tax increases kick in at “$250,000 in gross sales,” which traditionally means total sales at invoice values, or everything the plumbers billed. And, she said the plumbers would be looking at “massive tax increases,” when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Finally, of all taxpayers who declare business income, about 2 percent declare enough income to see tax increases if the rates on the top brackets expire. Most small business owners would not see a tax increase, though the most profitable small businesses would.
We’re not sure why Bachmann distorted the point about gross sales. As we said, it’s something that’s been explained several times. Good Morning America posted a note on its website after Bachmann’s appearance, noting that her statement was wrong. We asked her spokesperson for a comment but didn’t hear back.
The proposed increases have been discussed many times and for several years. Her misstatement of the facts on Good Morning America seems designed to scare small business owners into thinking they’re in line for a tax increase, even if their income is modest. For distorting the tax proposals to a ridiculous extent, we rate her statement Pants on Fire.”
Tina: “Horsefeathers! The only tax proposal he’s made includes the $200K/$250K figures. If he has changed his mind he should have talked about different numbers.”
Sorry, you’re misinformed. The proposal Obama was discussing was about eliminating tax breaks specifically for jet owners. He was not lumping in jet owners with all those who make over $250,000 a year, as you’ve claimed several times. Heritage actually has a good critique of the President on this issue here, pointing out that the tax break on jets was actually a part of the stimulus bill that Obama signed into law:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/
“Actually Libby small business owners file one tax form, not two. They report and pay taxes on what their business makes.”
Business expenses are DEDUCTIBLE, Tina.
“So they could have a profit of 250K but only realize 40K or less for themselves. Yet the tax on high wage earners will treat them like a salaried person that makes an actual 250K.”
Please show evidence that this is true. Every legitimate source I have read disputes this.
Tina, we have to define our terms here. “Profit” is that left over after all other expenses, i.e., premises, employee salaries, material, equipment and taxes … and your salary.
Now on a gross business income of $250,000 you could easily realize a personal income of $40K, but you pay personal income taxes on the $40K, not the $250K. Right?
“Actually Libby small business owners file one tax form, not two.”
And I don’t get this either. If your business is an actual business entity, and you take a salary from the business, the business files a return and so do you.
If you are a dba, then yes there is one return, but are taxed AFTER expenses.
Libby: “”Profit” is that left over after all other expenses, i.e., premises, employee salaries, material, equipment and taxes … and your salary.”
LAST YEARS EXPENSES. Businesses need working capital…so they can pay bills going forward, purchase new parts, materials, inventory or hire new people. (Businesses stagnate when you take too much away)
“Now on a gross business income of $250,000 you could easily realize a personal income of $40K, but you pay personal income taxes on the $40K, not the $250K. Right?”
The plan is to tax people making 250K I have to assume that is the taxable amount. (could be wrong)
“And I don’t get this either. If your business is an actual business entity, and you take a salary from the business, the business files a return and so do you.”
Corporations do. Small businesses that are not incorporated don’t…that is exactly the people I am talking about…they file one return…they are the business. (I’m a corp…not trying to get a better deal for me)
Tina: “The plan is to tax people making 250K I have to assume that is the taxable amount. (could be wrong)”
So, wait. While I’ve been busy challenging your claims with evidence from the Tax Policy Center, you’ve been basing yours on assumptions?
*sigh* Was I right when I said that a fact-based discussion with you on this issue will be impossible?
Chris: “So, wait. While I’ve been busy challenging your claims with evidence from the Tax Policy Center, you’ve been basing yours on assumptions?”
Don’t have a hissy Chris it is an assumption based on the fact that there is no law…only proposals…and the fact that although traditionally we have been taxed on adjusted gross income (AGI) anything is possible.
Besides, Chris, your sources are liberal think tanks had to say ityou always call me out on Heritage 😉
A quick search finds Im not the only one questioning what the President means:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_250000_Obama_tax_hike_on_gross_or_adjusted_gross_income
Source:
U.S. Tax Policy Center
Last paragraph states:
“We estimated the cost of Senator Obama’s proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees’ earnings above that threshold and that all of the provisions-including the higher payroll tax-are fully effective immediately.”
Clear as mud…at least with respect to adhering to the law on a tax form anyone would be willing to actually sign and submit to the IRS.
I also saw a discussion about whether Obama means gross income, adjusted gross income, or if he is simply referring to tax brackets here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×7445092
Im not sure anyone knows what he is proposing for sure:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cch-tax-briefing-examines-obamas-2011-budget-proposals-83683982.html
Have you got that?
Income could mean the gross amount or it could mean take home pay but either way there are also rules having to do with indexing for inflation and who knows what else. They go on to mention standard deductions so we once again are left to “assume” the 200-250 is adjusted gross income. But then they toss in the inflation adjusted number of $373,650huh?
Tax laws are complex…TOO FREAKIN COMPLEX…to speak about with complete certainty.
The discussion is purely political; I suspect the proposal is too. Obama did not submit a budget that is what they refer to as scorable. (In other words, it cant be criticized because it isnt a real budget but instead a collection of suggestions.)
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that Obama doesnt understand these terms any better than the average person.
Satisfied?
I feel I must reiterate the main points:
Tina: “Don’t have a hissy Chris it is an assumption based on the fact that there is no law…only proposals…and the fact that although traditionally we have been taxed on adjusted gross income (AGI) anything is possible.”
So, although we have always been taxed on adjusted gross income, you have been acting under the assumption that Obama’s proposal will somehow change this, even though he has never said or implied that he wants to do this?
That’s not a rational assumption.
“Besides, Chris, your sources are liberal think tanks”
The Tax Policy Center is not a liberal think tank, it is bipartisan. Politifact is not a liberal think tank either, and frequently calls out lies and misstatements from liberals.
“had to say ityou always call me out on Heritage ;)”
I also gave some credit to Heritage in my last comment.
“I feel I must reiterate the main points:
(if only a few people will be hit by this tax) what is the big push to raise their taxes?”
It may be a drop in the bucket for the deficit but every little bit helps.
“They already carry a very big tax burden, at least 60K just for federal taxes”
That’s not that big compared to how much they make in profits.
“they are more likely to invest the excess in job creating activity”
Sorry, but the past decade has proven that the rich are no more likely to do that then when their taxes are at Clinton-era levels. They simply haven’t been creating jobs even with massive tax cuts.
“Also, according to CATO half of small business would be hurt by the higher tax…”
And as I pointed out, the author of the CATO article you cited doesn’t explain how he came to this conclusion, so there’s no way to verify it. If you have another article which explains this number, I’d like to see it.
Chris: “So, although we have always been taxed on adjusted gross income, you have been acting under the assumption that Obama’s proposal will somehow change this, even though he has never said or implied that he wants to do this?.”
No…the assumption was that he would tax on AGI.
“The Tax Policy Center is not a liberal think tank, it is bipartisan. Politifact is not a liberal think tank either, and frequently calls out lies and misstatements from liberals.”
Heritage is bipartisan also…and to the degree that Heritage is conservative your source is likewise liberal…associated with Brookings.
“It may be a drop in the bucket for the deficit but every little bit helps.”
Weak argument! If every little bit helped the President would have suggested more spending cutrs and other means of “helping by bits”. Instead he made a point of demonizing the one person who has presented a scorable budget proposal. He wasn’t content to simply make a statement but instead created a publuic display and proceded to try to humiliate him publically. A shameful display and far from presidential!
“That’s not that big compared to how much they make in profits.”
Easy to say for someone that has never walked in those shoes. Are you hearing yourself. You are talking about using the power of government to take money from fellow citizens just because they have it. What happened to the concept of equal treatment under the law and private property rights? What happened to your brain that you cannot see the tyranny in this line of thinking? 14 trillion dollars in debt and growing plus programs that have proven to be unsustainable and instead of working to reform those programs and cut government spending his one big proposal is to take more from those who have. Incredible!
“They simply haven’t been creating jobs even with massive tax cuts.”
They would be if the man in the white house wasn’t creating more entitlement programs, expensiove environmental laws and spending like a drunken sailior! When does it end Chris? Your future is being destroyed and your too thick headed to see it.
“If you have another article which explains this number, I’d like to see it.”
Too late tonight…I’ll have to get back to you.
“LAST YEARS EXPENSES.”
Which may have included the purchase of new material, equipment and employees. And, monies are still coming in.
You’re still not making sense.
The profits aren’t taxed entirely away … just taxed.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/obama-tax-hikes-the-economic-and-fiscal-effects
Heritage Sources: Center for Data Analysis, CBO, and IHS Global Insight-US
Number of small businesses in America (stats from 2009):
http://bestbizpractices.org/2009/07/14/america-runs-on-small-business/
Those with fewer than 10 employees are likely to be hit by this tax increase.
Libby as I said, businesses stagnate when they are taxed too much. Right now is an especially stupid time to raise taxes since most businesses have already suffered a pretty big hit with sales down and an uncertain future business climate. My business has dropped about 2/3 in the last 2-3 years. A tax hike of several percent may seem like a small thing to you but it could be pretty tough on a business barely keeping the doors open. And it certainly won’t do anything to boost the economy or create jobs. These hikes will effect impact on the larger community as business continues to stagnate.
“The profits aren’t taxed entirely away … just taxed.”
A chunk is taken away…depending on how cash is flowing and what is needed for the future that chunk counts.
Your sense of what is okay for government to arbitrarily do blows me away.
The problem is too much spending. The probvlem is failed stimulus creating trillions in (unnecessary) debt.
Address the problem and you can see that cutting spending is the only cure that will have any lasting success.
Tina,
If I’m having a “hissy” it’s only because you’ve been less than honest during this entire conversation.
Several times you have stated, as fact, that the tax increases proposed by Obama will tax total income on small businesses, including business expenses, rather than just personal income.
You’ve given no evidence for this belief. It runs contrary to how the tax code works currently, and the president has not suggested such a radical change.
Now, you are saying that these statements were based only on assumptions. But earlier, you presented them as if you KNEW they were true. That’s dishonest, and it’s a waste of mine and Libby’s time. If you had simply said from the beginning that you were making assumptions, we could have agreed to disagree and I wouldn’t have had to ask you so many times to provide evidence for your claims.
You know that saying about what happens when you assume…it’s even worse when you pretend that your assumptions are facts.
“Heritage is bipartisan also…”
I’m sorry, Tina, but how freaking stupid do you think I am?
You do realize that absolutely anyone can visit heritage.org and see the tag at the top of the webpage which states, “Conservative Policy Research and Analysis.” It doesn’t say “Bipartisan Policy Research and Analysis.” Then one can go on to read the first paragraph of their “About” page, which states, “Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institutiona think tankwhose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies…”
It’s impossible for me to believe that you don’t already know Heritage is a completely conservative think-tank, not a bipartisan one, given how often you cite this source. Perhaps you simply don’t understand what “bipartisan” means. Either that, or you think I’m really, really dumb. Either way, please don’t try to tell me something so ridiculously, obviously false again. It’s insulting and it’s a waste of my time.
“and to the degree that Heritage is conservative your source is likewise liberal…associated with Brookings.”
The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. All three of these organizations describe themselves as non-partisan. The TCP was formed by members from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations. Brookings has no clear ideological preference. From Wikipedia:
“As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan. The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] In 2008, The New York Times published an article where it referred to the “conservative Brookings Institution,”, but the term “liberal” has been applied more frequently. The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.[26][27][28][29] The Los Angeles Times described Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist before concluding these labels made no sense.[30][31][32][33] In 1977, Time Magazine described it as the “nation’s pre-eminent liberal think tank.”[34] Newsweek has described Brookings as centrist.[35] In addition, the organization is described as centrist by the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.[16][36][37][38]
Some liberals argue that despite its left-of-center reputation, Brookings foreign policy scholars were overly supportive of Bush administration policies abroad.[39][40] Matthew Yglesias, for example, has pointed out that Brookings’s Michael O’Hanlon frequently agrees withand appears on stage withscholars from conservative organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Weekly Standard, and the Project for a New American Century.[39] Similarly, Brookings fellow and research director Benjamin Wittes is a member of the conservative Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law.[41] A number of Brookings scholars have served in Republican and Democratic administrations,[clarification needed] including Mark McClellan, Ron Haskins and Martin Indyk.[42]
The Brookings Board of Trustees include prominent Republicans such as Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, and prominent Democrats, such as Laura Tyson, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton. Its scholars include former government officials hailing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as many who have not served in government and do not advertise a party affiliation.[43]”
Even if you could show that Brookings, or the Tax Policy Center, did have a liberal bias, it still wouldn’t be equitable to Heritage, which exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of furthering conservative causes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that–as I’ve already said, Heritage isn’t always wrong. But a non-partisan source is almost always more credible than a partisan one. Regardless, that’s not what this discussion is about.
“They would be if the man in the white house wasn’t creating more entitlement programs, expensiove environmental laws and spending like a drunken sailior!”
No, Tina. Job creation was terrible long before Obama got into office. Job creation was booming under Clinton, and those are the tax rates Democrats propose going back to. That is hardly a radical suggestion, but you’re saying it’s a form of “tyranny?” That’s absurd. It’s hyperbolic Tea Party ranting, not serious discussion.
From Tina’s Heritage article:
“In other words, about half of those subject to the Obama tax increases are small businesses with employees.”
Tina, you realize this doesn’t support Cato’s assertion, right? Heritage is saying that half of the people in the top two tax brackets are small business owners; NOT that half of small business owners are in the top two tax brackets. There’s a huge difference there, and I’m still waiting to see evidence for the latter claim.
Chris “Several times you have stated, as fact, that the tax increases proposed by Obama will tax total income on small businesses, including business expenses, rather than just personal income.”
That was never my intention. Most of what I said was an attempt to offer a sense of reality about small business expenses and how a small business tax form could reflect what seems like a lot of money when in fact the take home for the owner is considerably less. Every persons circumstance and business is different so there isn’t a magic formula I can give you. I am speaking from experience and reacting to ignorance that springs from inexperience.
“If you had simply said from the beginning that you were making assumptions, we could have agreed to disagree and I wouldn’t have had to ask you so many times to provide evidence for your claims.”
I wasn’t making statements based on assumptions. Libby suggested raising the tax rates 40% 50% 60% on a fictitious small businessperson. I was creating a scenario to attempt to show her peopel make profits but the profits don’t go home. The two of you seem unwilling to even consider this possibility.
“I’m sorry, Tina, but how freaking stupid do you think I am?”
I erred on Heritage what I should have said is they are nonpartisan. They have been critical of Republicans and Democrats.
“The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.
The same has been said of FOX News and Bill O’Reilly…so much for opinion…yours or mine. (This is a waste of time as well)
“But a non-partisan source is almost always more credible than a partisan one.”
Heritage is extremely careful about sourcing their facts…and facts are your big bugaboo…I disagree. Heritage is quite credible.
“No, Tina. Job creation was terrible long before Obama got into office.”
Sorry you are wrong. Under Bush the unemployment rate averaged 5.23%, Obamas average is 10.1%. That doesn’t tell the entire story, however. Under Obama more people are underemployed or have falle off the unemployment rolls because they have given up on finding work. More people are applying for food stamps. There is a difference between a temporary condition that might occur during a recession (both began their terms in recession) and a sustained period of stagfnant job growth. We are experiencing the latter (except in the public sector, especially DC and banking hoohahs, to borrow a Libby fav)
“Job creation was booming under Clinton…”
The result of the dotcom bubble…it quickly dissapated. A similar comparison is the hot housing boom…until the bubble burst. And Clintons average unemployment was 5.2%.
More telling is the percentage of debt to GDP…no president prior to this one has such a terrible record as Obama on that score. Which is why we need to CUT SPENDING.
“those are the tax rates Democrats propose going back to. That is hardly a radical suggestion, but you’re saying it’s a form of “tyranny?” That’s absurd.”
What I describe as a form of tyranny is the notion that government (politicians) should be able to take whatever it decides it wants whenever it wants without regard to circumstance in the lives of its citizens.
There is nothing fair about a tax code that is 9 million words long with compliance costs estimated at $350 billion annually. There is nothing fair or workable about tax laws change every year jerking businesses around and making planning for the future nearly impossible. There is nothing fair or equitable about assuming anyone who has a profit of $250K “can afford” higher tax rates. This has got to stop or America will never be the land of opportunity it once was…there won’t be any incentive.
Also there is this:
“Heritage is saying that half of the people in the top two tax brackets are small business owners; NOT that half of small business owners are in the top two tax brackets. There’s a huge difference there…”
The entire quote from Heritage was:
Here’s CATO:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13037
Without figures (for a given year) there is no way to know whether or not these two statements are in conflict. How did you arrive at your conclusion?
More importantly what difference does it make? Both points drive home the fact that a large number of people will be adversley affected by a higher tax rate…especially at this time.
Another point to be made about this attack on jet owners. I believe it was Bill Clinton who slapped a luxery tax on yacht builders, another “tax the rich” scheme. It destroyed the yacht building business in America. People change their habits and tax policies have consequences. Those who don’t work in business have trouble getting it but those who do know only too well.
Read Krauthammers, “The Emendorf Rule”, for a little perspective on the budget talks and debates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-elmendorf-rule/2011/07/07/gIQAPagk2H_story.html
An excerpt on the obama/Democrat strategy:
Thats why he gets paid the big bucks!
All of this will be lost on his supporters who favor winning and redistribution, secured by diabolical political warfare, above the American dream. You can’t negotiate with terrorists and you can’t negotiate with the insincere…We the people are the losers in this game as always.
Tina: “I was creating a scenario to attempt to show her peopel make profits but the profits don’t go home. The two of you seem unwilling to even consider this possibility.”
Not true. Of course not all of the profits go home. But then, THOSE PROFITS AREN’T TAXED. They are deducted as business expenses.
“I erred on Heritage what I should have said is they are nonpartisan.”
LOL! No, Tina. That would also have been a hilariously dumb lie. Heritage is CONSERVATIVE. As I showed you, they make that abundantly clear on their own website.
“They have been critical of Republicans and Democrats.”
So? All this proves is that you don’t know what “nonpartisan” means. President Obama has been critical of some Democrats, does that make him nonpartisan too? By your logic, it does.
Heritage chooses to identify as a conservative think tank. I don’t think anyone from Heritage would ever claim that their organization is nonpartisan, and I think they’d tell anyone who does make that claim that they are seriously missing the point of what they do. Heritage is very devoted to conservative causes and they don’t have any problem letting people know that.
I can’t believe I just had to explain that to you again.
“What I describe as a form of tyranny is the notion that government (politicians) should be able to take whatever it decides it wants whenever it wants without regard to circumstance in the lives of its citizens.”
Well, of course a government shouldn’t do anything without regard to the lives of its citizens. I don’t believe that’s what Obama’s tax policies are doing.
“There is nothing fair about a tax code that is 9 million words long with compliance costs estimated at $350 billion annually. There is nothing fair or workable about tax laws change every year jerking businesses around and making planning for the future nearly impossible.”
I think we can all agree with this.
“There is nothing fair or equitable about assuming anyone who has a profit of $250K “can afford” higher tax rates.”
Why isn’t that fair? It’s true.
“Without figures (for a given year) there is no way to know whether or not these two statements are in conflict. How did you arrive at your conclusion?”
I didn’t say the two statements were in conflict, I said that one does not support the other. I had asked if you had support for Tanner’s claim, and you then linked to an unrelated claim.
“More importantly what difference does it make? Both points drive home the fact that a large number of people will be adversley affected by a higher tax rate…especially at this time.”
Actually, looking at the portions you cited, neither of them make this point.
I originally took Tanner’s CATO article as arguing that half of small business owners will see a tax increase. I took issue with that claim, but that was my fault for misreading it. What Tanner really says is that the tax increase will affect half of all small business INCOME.
The Heritage article you quoted only says that “about half of those subject to the Obama tax increases are small businesses with employees.”
Neither of these statistics tell us much of use. They do not give any indication as to how many Americans are actually affected by the tax increases. This is odd, because it seems like that would be the most important number we need to know in this debate. One wonders if this was left out on purpose.
Since these articles aren’t giving us any estimates for the percentage of Americans effected by the tax increases, we have to go by the work of others. According to most reliable estimates, only 2-3% of the American people make over $250,000 a year.
That means that if Heritage is right, the small business owners they reference who would be effected by Obama’s tax increases make up only 1.5% of Americans.
What about Tanner’s assertion that half of small business income will be effected by the tax? He’s right, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center. But the crucial fact Tanner leaves out is that this half belongs exclusively to only 3% of small business owners, meaning that the other 97% will not see a tax increase.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html
Those are not very large numbers of people, Tina.
I’ll have to respond to the Bush v. Clinton comments later.