Sen. Obama says the average small business makes less than $250,000 per year. How could that be? That just doesn't sound right.

I have 2 relatives that run construction businesses up in the Poconos. Neither of them earn 250K.

Maybe they're the exception?

Do you think the dry cleaner you go to clears more than $250K a year? Or the coffee shop? Most small businesses aren't car dealerships and tech firms.

I agree. I don't know either. It just seems low when you consider doctors, dentitsts, bodegas, liquor stores, small law firms, lumber yards, and a lot of other mom and pop operations that just seem to be doing pretty well. I guess this is one for the fact checkers.

There is a difference between gross income and net income. A lumber yard may bill millions a year, but the owner may clear $100K of that for himself. Same would hold true for liquor stores and restaurants. As for doctors, they simply don't make the kind of money they used to because of managed care and Medicare.

Yep. Could be that the bottom line is less than $250K especially for younger businesses. Accounting practices probably help here also when it comes to gross vs net. At the end of the year the owner's salary is going to come out of the bottom line too. Businesses are going to have more a lot more latitude here than salaried professionals. I imagine there are accountants here on FU and they would know better than I. It just struck me odd.

I don't even get why this matters. Republicans like to bring up this "small business" thing so that they create the image of small mom and pop businesses being hurt by tax increases. The fact is, if you are making 250k--and we're talking profit here--you are doing pretty well whether you are a small business owner or a salaried employee. The notion that someone making a healthy profit will start laying people off if they have to pay a little more in taxes is just silly. You lay people off when you *aren't* making a profit.

Personally, I'd like taxes to be as low as possible but I don't support doing that until you've gotten the government back on a path of fiscal responsibility. Cut spending first, then lower taxes once you've gotten the budget back to balance.

Speaking of taxes, the release of the Palin's tax returns should put a few other typical Republican canards to rest too. We hear again and again that capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends are so harmful to average tax payers. The Palin's are hardly average--they make substantially more than most taxpayers and have much higher than average net worth. Take a look at what they pay in taxes on capital gains and dividends. As I recall, they had a capital gain of a couple of thousand dollars and taxable dividends of about $250. Almost nothing. And look at what they're effective tax rate turned out to be--somewhere around 15%. Hardly the punitive levels that right wing alarmists are always screaming about.

My coffee hasnt kicked in yet - but my calculations - the numbers are about 2% of the households have an income of more than $250,000 and the average of that groups income is well over the $250,000 threshhold.

Flame away.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

Look at it this way. Say you are making $250K a year. Say your annual tax payment is $87,500. Your taxes get raised a couple of percentage points to $92,500. You mean to tell me you are going to start laying off people over $5K?

It all depends on what you are talking about. I have a small business, with 7 employees, that makes a gross income above $700000. My overhead alone is above $250000. My salary after expenses/overhead is less than $250,000. If Obama is talking about small business income he will tax my company but not my personal income. By taxing my company I will have to decrease spending and probably let one of my employees go.

See, this is exactly the type of confusion Republicans are trying to plant in people's minds. He ISN'T talking about taxing small businesses--he is talking about taxing *individuals* who make more than 250k. What your business grosses is irrelevant. If your business grosses 700k and your profit is less than 250k your taxes won't increase.


SmallBusinessOwner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It all depends on what you are talking about. I
> have a small business, with 7 employees, that
> makes a gross income above $700000. My overhead
> alone is above $250000. My salary after
> expenses/overhead is less than $250,000. If Obama
> is talking about small business income he will tax
> my company but not my personal income. By taxing
> my company I will have to decrease spending and
> probably let one of my employees go.

SmallBusinessOwner Wrote:
>> If Obama is talking about small business income


FYI, that isn't what Obama is talking about.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See, this is exactly the type of confusion
> Republicans are trying to plant in people's minds.
> He ISN'T talking about taxing small
> businesses--he is talking about taxing
> *individuals* who make more than 250k. What your
> business grosses is irrelevant. If your business
> grosses 700k and your profit is less than 250k
> your taxes won't increase.


Many small businesses file taxes as individuals so that they do not have to pay taxes twice. For tax purposes, the small business is treated as an *individual*

SmallBusinessOwner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It all depends on what you are talking about. I
> have a small business, with 7 employees, that
> makes a gross income above $700000. My overhead
> alone is above $250000. My salary after
> expenses/overhead is less than $250,000. If Obama
> is talking about small business income he will tax
> my company but not my personal income. By taxing
> my company I will have to decrease spending and
> probably let one of my employees go.


Who does your taxes? Your small business should be a pass-through entity (you would file a K-1). The only thing you should be paying Federal taxes on are your income and the income of your employees. You may pay local taxes on your gross receipts, but that has nothing to do with what Obama is proposing at the Federal level.

Thanks for trying to clarrify that for me. I am actually an indipendent. This morning I was trying to research what the Obama plan actually means for my small business and came upon your forum. On yesterdays debate the distinction between the small business owner's income and the company's gross income was not made. Thanks again.

According to a 2006 survey done by salary.com the natioanl average income for small business owners is $258,400.

http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041∂=Par545

That doesn't change my point. Whether we are talking about a business filing as an individual or an actual individual, Obama's plan excludes anyone making less than 250k. The 250k refers to taxable income, not gross profit.


Individual Wrote:
>
> Many small businesses file taxes as individuals so
> that they do not have to pay taxes twice. For tax
> purposes, the small business is treated as an
> *individual*

First of all the majority of small businesses fail or lose money so that annual number maybe skewed.

The small business owners I know make between $50,000 and $200,000. Now their companies may gross $700,000-$5 million, but after paying expenses, interest, health care, benefits, taxes and salaries not much is left over.

Taxes is what really kills the profit and they work with accountants to try and get all the advantages they can, such as a business lunch paid for, travel expenses paid because they combine a vacation with a business trip etc. So they do get some added perks along with having flexible hours. In general the ones that make the big money work 14 hour days and are always on the phone doing business.

The smart business owners try to save as much as possible any place they can so they can have reserves for bad years. The problem is that so many Walmart type businesses can easily get capital and wipe them out.

I know one owner who was making good money until an interestion was changed, with in two weeks his business dropped 65% and stayed that way.

Voter wrote

Quote

Obama's plan excludes anyone making less than 250k. The 250k refers to taxable income, not gross profit.

Which would actually make it worse. If he just taxed you on profit (the 250K threshold) it would be easier to understand. All businesses will report gross and net income, after taking deductions for business expenses and other allowable expenses, you end up reporting Net, and then Profit. So by your own statement then they would be MORE eligible to be taxed. Net income <> profit.

As an individual acting as a business (many contractors in the DC area do this), the majority will not make $250K easily. But as any kind of small business or franchise owner, the business will make $250K easily. Then you are taxed on salaries for your employees as well as your own. So pretty much any business with more than 2 or 3 employees would fall into this bracket.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2008 11:45AM by Registered Voter.

Foolishness. Obama wants to tax THE BUSINESS ITSELF not the owners. That will destroy the economy. Check out this Gov SBA website which indicates how important small businesses are--and, I might add, the less than 2 thirds last more than 7 years. Taxing them will be an economic disaster. We are not talking about business owners--but businesses themselves.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a difference between gross income and net
> income. A lumber yard may bill millions a year,
> but the owner may clear $100K of that for himself.
> Same would hold true for liquor stores and
> restaurants. As for doctors, they simply don't
> make the kind of money they used to because of
> managed care and Medicare.

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

Obama's plan is still far better than McCain's and Bush.

MisterGopher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to a 2006 survey done by salary.com the
> natioanl average income for small business owners
> is $258,400.
>
> http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_d
> efault.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041∂=Par5
> 45

"Average" isn't "most." Median income would be more indicative.

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202849.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Quote

According to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes.

If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is?

The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent.

Politico on Obama's Tax Plan:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

Quote

...
Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

...

What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.

Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter wrote
>
> Obama's plan excludes anyone making less than
> 250k. The 250k refers to taxable income, not gross
> profit.
>
>
>
> Which would actually make it worse. If he just
> taxed you on profit (the 250K threshold) it would
> be easier to understand. All businesses will
> report gross and net income, after taking
> deductions for business expenses and other
> allowable expenses, you end up reporting Net, and
> then Profit. So by your own statement then they
> would be MORE eligible to be taxed. Net income <>
> profit.
>
> As an individual acting as a business (many
> contractors in the DC area do this), the majority
> will not make $250K easily. But as any kind of
> small business or franchise owner, the business
> will make $250K easily. Then you are taxed on
> salaries for your employees as well as your own.
> So pretty much any business with more than 2 or 3
> employees would fall into this bracket.

Employee withholding taxes count against the employee's income, not the business owner's.

I have a small business. I have employees. I pay taxes on what I make, not what my employees make.

You clearly don't understand how this works. You are NOT taxed on your employees salaries. Those are part of your operating expenses and deducted from gross profit.


Registered Voter Wrote:
> will make $250K easily. Then you are taxed on
> salaries for your employees as well as your own.
> So pretty much any business with more than 2 or 3
> employees would fall into this bracket.

You know, the whole argument about this in the short term in laughable. Lets all go back to Bill Clinton, who ran on the message of cutting taxes. Within 2 years he raised taxes on everyone.

George Bush Sr got in trouble with his "read my lips" statement, because the Democratically controlled Congress forced him to raise taxes within 2 years of his coming into office.

So all of this aside, McCain is the only one who really has a track record of fighting big ticket items in Congress. Not just earmarks, but stupid contracts and projects. I have yet to see Democrats ever cut a government program other than Defense spending. So, I think that should set the stage for what will happen under Obama.

And just getting us out of Iraq won't help, since we still have to send more troops to Afghanistan. So the $10B a month he likes to throw out about Iraq isn't going to end anytime soon since that money will be redirected. So I guess he is going to make cuts in a few other places to make that happen - and it will most likely all come out of defense spending since he seems to want to fund every other project on his agenda full speed ahead.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You clearly don't understand how this works. You
> are NOT taxed on your employees salaries. Those
> are part of your operating expenses and deducted
> from gross profit.
>
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> > will make $250K easily. Then you are taxed on
> > salaries for your employees as well as your
> own.
> > So pretty much any business with more than 2 or
> 3
> > employees would fall into this bracket.

Essentially you are paying taxes on your employees salary when you pay them - they deal with part of the taxes later when they file personal income tax returns. So sure, your bottom line gets reduced, but you are contributing to Soc Sec and the rest for these folks. I understand it quite well thanks.

From your comment earlier:

Quote

I don't even get why this matters. Republicans like to bring up this "small business" thing so that they create the image of small mom and pop businesses being hurt by tax increases. The fact is, if you are making 250k--and we're talking profit here-

]

I am sure the people making the money as their salary (the owners) don't believe the $250K they are paying themselves is "profit" from their business. So not sure where you got that from.

It all depends on the type of business structure you have and it's too complicated to explain in detail here. As one simple example though, Sole Propietorships don't pay their owners salary. The business profit is the owner's salary. No profit, no salary. If the business sells 700k in product that's called gross sales, or revenue. If the business paid 400k for the cost of goods that is subtracted from the 700k and the 300k left over is called gross profit. Then you subtract out your operating costs such as rent, utilities, advertising, and employee (not your own) salaries. You are left with your net operating profit or loss. That is the amount you pay tax on. Corporations are different but the same principles apply.

BTW, how do you like that new program that McCain--that guy with the proven track record of fighting big ticket items--proposed last night? You know, the $300 billion dollar program that buys up everybody's bad mortgages? Ah, more big government Republicanism!


Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> I am sure the people making the money as their
> salary (the owners) don't believe the $250K they
> are paying themselves is "profit" from their
> business. So not sure where you got that from.

We're not talking about payroll taxes here--we're talking about income taxes. Your employees are paying their own income taxes--you don't pay that you merely withhold it from their checks and forward it to the government. You pay half of their SS and Medicare but that isn't changing unless your employee makes more than 250k a year.


Registered Voter Wrote:
> Essentially you are paying taxes on your employees
> salary when you pay them - they deal with part of
> the taxes later when they file personal income tax
> returns. So sure, your bottom line gets reduced,
> but you are contributing to Soc Sec and the rest
> for these folks. I understand it quite well
> thanks.

Regarding the $300B thing...

If the economy is going south, and it looks like housing prices are going to tank, this may be one way to stave off the mess, and help "the little guy" as opposed to Corporations that already profited off the mortgages in the first place. The bill they just passed has some provision for that in place already.

But I think you, and everyone else here understands that if the housing values totally tank in value that would pretty much blow up the entire economy. That would be the roll down to the "depression" that everyone fears. The Treasury needs to get out and buy up the "bad paper" quickly, so as to help start alleviating the asset/liability issue banks are seeing that is stopping them from lending. Maybe all this new off market lending and such will help also. It is really a catch 22 - the housing values are dropping due to over building and lack of demand combined, you have foreclosures adding to the inventory glut, and it just makes it that much harder to value what is out there now. Having the Treasury step in and take ownership of the properties is great, but still may not deal with the value problem. So by having them take ownership of a bad loan, and essentially wiping out part of the owner's principle is probably a better answer than just having the owner walk away which is happening in most of these cases right now. Certainly though it should only be extended to primary residences, and it should all be documented and reviewed to ensure no one abuses this. So sure, some homeowners with large mortgages may get a windfall, but that is probably better in the long run than having even more houses come on the market.

That proposal is probably one of the better ideas in this mess right now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2008 01:48PM by Registered Voter.

RV-

Regarding the 2/3rds of business owners who receive $250K from their S-Corp pass-through, that still doesn't take into consideration their adjusted income. For instance, say they make $261K. They will still deduct for their mortgage interest, their kids, their part of their 401K contribution, etc, etc. Once you factor those things in, the taxable income could easily be well under $200K.

As for the payroll taxes, Voter explained it to you. I hope you get it now.

I got it before. Again, I get all the tax issues, I have been a contractor in this area for years and had to file as my own business during that time. Making a bigger issue out of my not stating the issue to your satisfaction doesn't mean I misunderstood it.

Adjusted income is all good and well - sure they will deduct as much a they can.

Quote

$706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000

Nothing in this statement indicates before or after adjustments. This part of the Obama tax plan though"

Quote

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century

And also his point about "closing corporate loopholes" - sounds like many of the deductions these folks currently have will also go away.

You know, Obama won't write these tax laws, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will. I am more inclined to believe that she will have a lot more influence on shaping the version of this that makes it to the final cut than Obama will.

In any case, unless he can somehow figure out how to CUT SPENDING, it isn't going to matter much. The entitlement programs alone are growing faster than he can ever hope to cut spending - even in defense alone. So at some point he will have to shit or get off the pot so to speak. My guess is you will start hearing tax hikes on all of us in short order if he is elected. Once he senses there is any sort of stability to the financial system it will become a high priority item.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2008 02:16PM by Registered Voter.

http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041∂=Par545

I think the salary.com article is pretty cut and dry. If those small business CEOs take a hit, that means their employees will be taking a hit as well. People don't run businesses for the fun of it. If there is less money for the owner, they will cut pay and fire people. It also looks as though certain cities/states will be worse off than others when the Obama tax plan takes effect. Good luck to everyone in those areas. Small businesses are more important than most people realize. Just because you aren't the owner paying the taxes doesn't mean you won't feel the impact.

RV-

Jesus. You are quoting Grover Norquist! Norquist is a die-hard Republican operative. Of course he is going to say that the Dems will put a 50% tax on small business owners. There is no way in Hell the Dems are going to do that! It would be political suicide.

As for the net income, the S-Corp pass-through is $250K. That's basically the gross amount that comes to the individual before he or she claims their individual deductions. The tax tables work on adjusted income, not on gross income! You don't "get it" like you claim.

Abbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the salary.com article is pretty cut and
> dry. If those small business CEOs take a hit, that
> means their employees will be taking a hit as
> well. People don't run businesses for the fun of
> it. If there is less money for the owner, they
> will cut pay and fire people. It also looks as
> though certain cities/states will be worse off
> than others when the Obama tax plan takes effect.
> Good luck to everyone in those areas. Small
> businesses are more important than most people
> realize. Just because you aren't the owner paying
> the taxes doesn't mean you won't feel the impact.


The median compensation is below $300K. MOST small business owners will not be impacted by the tax hike.

Abbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the salary.com article is pretty cut and
> dry.

I would trust the numbers from the census more. How many households did the salary.com survey? Census claims in excess of 116 million - give or take.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV-
>
> Jesus. You are quoting Grover Norquist! Norquist
> is a die-hard Republican operative. Of course he
> is going to say that the Dems will put a 50% tax
> on small business owners. There is no way in Hell
> the Dems are going to do that! It would be
> political suicide.
>
> As for the net income, the S-Corp pass-through is
> $250K. That's basically the gross amount that
> comes to the individual before he or she claims
> their individual deductions. The tax tables work
> on adjusted income, not on gross income! You don't
> "get it" like you claim.


All he ever does is cut and paste republikan propaganda.

It looks like the Salary.com data came from self-selecting members of various associations. It isn't truly random. Think about it this way. If your business made no money, would you readily volunteer that? Nope. Not very scientific.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> All he ever does is cut and paste republikan
> propaganda.


That's all they ever do.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV-
>
> Jesus. You are quoting Grover Norquist! Norquist
> is a die-hard Republican operative. Of course he
> is going to say that the Dems will put a 50% tax
> on small business owners. There is no way in Hell
> the Dems are going to do that! It would be
> political suicide.
>

Right. And the Republicans weren't going to spend like drunken sailors when they managed to get control of Congress and the Whitehouse. Regarding the (non) tax increase you think is going to happen - in 2 years when they DO increase the taxes for everyone else - per their previously demonstrated history - are you going to be cheering then? Do you think Obama (if elected) would fight Nancy Pelosi on her version of a tax plan? If they aren't going to allow oil companies to drill anywhere that we actually have decent oil reserves, how is this tax on windfall profits supposed to work - especially with the decrease in oil prices due to the economic slump? I thought Obama had proposed a $1000 rebate, paid for by taxing the oil companies for the money to pay for it.

Vince.. you again? All you ever do is cry. Hey you missed a spot, the tin foil is slipping out from under your toupee.

What happened to the surplus the Democratics created before the Bush administration?

The one that was paid for by cutting defense spending you mean? The one that was already on the way out due to a recession starting before 9/11 (remember the original tax cut plans) and then after 9/11 a loss of millions of jobs and such?

Defense spending. That is it. This is obviously a good time to reduce defense spending - right?

RV (aka Recreational Vehicle) - All I ever hear out of your mouth is a noun, a verb and 9/11. Let's move on. It's not like we're at imminent risk of being invaded by a group or country of any significance. You must be waiting for the martains to attack. Please put down the Atari 2600 Space Invaders game and walk away.

That is because when Obama says 'earns or makes' what he means is revenue, not profit. Before any costs are deducted.

SmallBusinessOwner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It all depends on what you are talking about. I
> have a small business, with 7 employees, that
> makes a gross income above $700000. My overhead
> alone is above $250000. My salary after
> expenses/overhead is less than $250,000. If Obama
> is talking about small business income he will tax
> my company but not my personal income. By taxing
> my company I will have to decrease spending and
> probably let one of my employees go.


You need a better accountant.

First of all, if you are paying yourself less than $250,000 and leaving actual profit in your company and not sheltering it in a way that you can use to grow your company, the government should take ALL of that money from you because you are wasting it. But seriously, if you've got $300,000 or so in profit that isn't considered your salary, then I'm sure you can still grow your business just as well paying 30% versus 25%

You have 7 employees, are you paying them less than $20,000 a year? Or did you forget to include payroll in your overhead? Social Security? all the etc etc expenses of employing people?

I know people in this area who have gross revenues over a million, but they have taxable incomes of less than $200,000. One owns several rental properties in DC, a private plane and a 911 Carrera S. I probably end up paying more in taxes as a salaried employee than these people pay for owning a business that offers them a plethora of tax breaks and write-offs.

Did you know you get an amazing write off for your business with an SUV (or any vehicle over a certain weight)?

All of your major expenses should be business expenses, that way you can whittle down your business's taxable income, as another example.

MidWest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is because when Obama says 'earns or makes'
> what he means is revenue, not profit. Before any
> costs are deducted.


Umm, no, he doesn't.

He's talking about a family business where they can take more than $250,000 for their personal use, or in other words, their income, not what the company takes in through sales before paying suppliers, employees, leases, advertising, etc.

To even believe that stuff proves ignorance of how your boss runs his plumbing company.

It's all about net income. There are plenty of ways for small business owners to get their net income down after business expenses. For instance, they can use a SEP IRA or Keogh 401K and knock down their taxable income by tens of thousands of dollars. Joe the Plumber needs to hire a CPA instead of bitching about socialism.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all about net income. There are plenty of
> ways for small business owners to get their net
> income down after business expenses. For instance,
> they can use a SEP IRA or Keogh 401K and knock
> down their taxable income by tens of thousands of
> dollars. Joe the Plumber needs to hire a CPA
> instead of bitching about socialism.


A small business can offer a defined benefit plan to their principals and emplyees for instance. It would have to pass the 401(A)(4) test to make sure the big guys are being "equitable" in regard to their employees.

For instance, a doctors office. The two doctors make $400,000 per year or more and the average salary of their staff is about $45,000. So you would do the out of control calculation and show that the benefit for the 30 year old office workers is the same over time as the two doctors.

So with "older" doctors and a younger staff, the docs can make a few thousand dollars contribution to their staffs retirement plan and then come close to maxing out the doctors defined benefit plan. The total tax defered contribution the docs could make to their own retirement account? The 2008 max tax defered contribution would be $185,000 each. Again, TAX DEFERED.

Yes, there are drawbacks, but not many.

Small businesses are often sole proprietor or S-Corp. The business income and the owner's income are one and the same and are not serperated for tax purposes.

Since that is the case, 0bama's plan will raise taxes on the individual who owns a small business.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See, this is exactly the type of confusion
> Republicans are trying to plant in people's minds.
> He ISN'T talking about taxing small
> businesses--he is talking about taxing
> *individuals* who make more than 250k. What your
> business grosses is irrelevant. If your business
> grosses 700k and your profit is less than 250k
> your taxes won't increase.
>
>
> SmallBusinessOwner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It all depends on what you are talking about.
> I
> > have a small business, with 7 employees, that
> > makes a gross income above $700000. My
> overhead
> > alone is above $250000. My salary after
> > expenses/overhead is less than $250,000. If
> Obama
> > is talking about small business income he will
> tax
> > my company but not my personal income. By
> taxing
> > my company I will have to decrease spending and
> > probably let one of my employees go.

> > my company I will have to decrease spending and
> > probably let one of my employees go

How much does your employee make?

Lets say he/she makes minimum wage. $6.65 an hour and you DONT pay benefits.

Ok ... Min wage X 40 hours X 50 weeks (since you dont pay vacation) = $13,300 per year.

and let us say you come in at exactyly $250,000 per year. Then in order for you to be forced to lay off your minimum wage emplyee, you believe that Obama's tax increase would be an additional 5.3% of your TOTAL income above what you are paying now. 5.3% of your total income in addition to what you are paying now!

Yeah right! You are living in a fantasy world.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much does your employee make?
>
> Lets say he/she makes minimum wage. $6.65 an hour
> and you DONT pay benefits.
>
> Ok ... Min wage X 40 hours X 50 weeks (since you
> dont pay vacation) = $13,300 per year.
>
> and let us say you come in at exactyly $250,000
> per year. Then in order for you to be forced to
> lay off your minimum wage emplyee, you believe
> that Obama's tax increase would be an additional
> 5.3% of your TOTAL income above what you are
> paying now. 5.3% of your total income in addition
> to what you are paying now!
>
> Yeah right! You are living in a fantasy world.


He's not living in a fantasy world, he's living in the nightmare world of buying into the fearmongering of media like Fox News and Weekly Standard, et al.

The sad thing is that if he really does own his own business and isn't paying a good accountant or money manager to advise him, he deserves to lose money and buy into the fear that the "other" candidate is going to suddenly cause him to lose money.

There's a bunch of exceptional people in this area who have been working with small businesses and high net-worth families for several decades. David Kasir and Mike Kazimi come to mind. (not sure if I spelled either of their names right, but if you ask around, people know who they are.)

Obama's plan deals with the "gross" income of businesses...........I think its fair to say that the vast majority of small business match or exceed this guideline.

There is actually another problem with this scenario. Rational employers hire people because they make a contribution to the bottom line in one way or another. Unless you are employing people out of charity, laying them off will cause your company to be less profitable. In fact, the only rational reason for hiring a worker is that you believe their marginal product of labor will be higher than the cost of hiring them. That is, they will produce more than you pay them. The idea that companies will purposely become less profitable in order to avoid paying taxes makes no sense.


Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > my company I will have to decrease spending
> and
> > > probably let one of my employees go
>
> How much does your employee make?
>
> Lets say he/she makes minimum wage. $6.65 an hour
> and you DONT pay benefits.
>
> Ok ... Min wage X 40 hours X 50 weeks (since you
> dont pay vacation) = $13,300 per year.
>
> and let us say you come in at exactyly $250,000
> per year. Then in order for you to be forced to
> lay off your minimum wage emplyee, you believe
> that Obama's tax increase would be an additional
> 5.3% of your TOTAL income above what you are
> paying now. 5.3% of your total income in addition
> to what you are paying now!
>
> Yeah right! You are living in a fantasy world.

Obama's plan DOES NOT deal with "gross" income. Please get your facts straight.

Informed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama's plan deals with the "gross" income of
> businesses...........I think its fair to say that
> the vast majority of small business match or
> exceed this guideline.

As a person who owns a business, I can tell you that you are taxed on your net income, not your gross income (at least at the Federal level). Most small business owners pay themselves with the profits. Considering that most businesses have profit margins that range from 2 to 15 percent, you would have to make a substantial amount of gross revenue to net $250K after all your deductions, etc. I don't believe the average dry cleaner, restaurant or plumber makes gross revenues in the area of several million dollars a year.

As Maria Cardona stated on Fox news it is 250k gross income not net

Check it out yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13jDMAdxNo now that you have the facts "voter"

You can't be serious. First of all, I watched the video you linked to, and I don't see anything in there backing up an assertion that the Obama tax plan refers to gross not net income. Secondly, really, some opinion segment on Fox News? Fortunately, we don't have to rely on this kind of nonsense--it's all spelled out in really quite clear terms. Get educated.

buddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check it out yourself
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13jDMAdxNo now
> that you have the facts "voter"

buddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Maria Cardona stated on Fox news it is 250k
> gross income not net


Thank god a news channel talking head who gets her paycheck from the australian guy who owns london and new york tabloids said it. Now I can believe it!

I also read on one of Rupert's tabloid paper's websites that they found a world war two bomber on the moon, and that Brown is dating Berlusconi on the down-low, and that putin and sarkozy are pissed because they were promised by Tony Blair to be fixed up with Gordon Brown.

buddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As Maria Cardona stated on Fox news it is 250k
> gross income not net


It's adjusted gross income. Just like you pay on your personal income taxes. It is still the same thing as net income.

buddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check it out yourself
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13jDMAdxNo now
> that you have the facts "voter"

The gal misspoke. I have looked at the plan and it reference "adjusted gross income." That is the net income you claim on your personal taxes. It is not gross revenues.

I had trouble watching the video the first time but when I saw the full video I also concluded that she had misspoke and probably meant to say "adjusted gross income" and not just "gross". The Obama plan has always referred to individuals but McCain has tried to muddy the waters by pointing out that lots of small business pay income tax as individuals and therefore Obama would be increasing taxes on small business. So people without a lot of understanding of how businesses are taxed have gotten pretty confused. Anybody that needs further convincing that the plan refers to AGI can read the answer in the Wall Street Journal, which should be a definitive enough source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122134302504832663.html


Q: Two advisers to Sen. Obama recently wrote that the Obama tax plan "would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes." What did they mean by "making"? Is "making" considered total income or AGI?

—R.C., Denver
A: Jason Furman, Sen. Obama's economic policy director, replies that "making" refers to adjusted gross income.

Adjusted gross income, or AGI, is what's left after taking your total income and then making various "adjustments," such as deductions for moving expenses, individual retirement accounts, student loan interest, self-employed health insurance payments and numerous other items.

However, adjusted gross income is before you claim either the standard deduction or itemized deductions.

If you filed Form 1040 last year, your total income appeared on line 22, and adjusted gross income appeared on line 37.

* * *

Joe the Plumber needs to hire a good attorney first because it appears he's been practicing plumbing without a license for years.

Once he gets done paying all the plumbing fines then he can start worrying about being rich and getting a loan for his plumbing business.

I also suggest he registers to vote.

We're talking about successful small businesses making over $200,000 right? *LOL* 1 out of 10 that make it?

It's a shame that McCain had to ruin "Joe the Plumbers" life. Next time McCain should check to see if "the plumber" has a plumbing license. Apparently Joe the plumber has been practicing plumbing for years with out a license.

It would also be nice if Joe the plumber registers to vote properly.

McCain campaign transition = Hockey Mom => Joe Six Pack => Joe the Plumber

Joe the Plumber's whole premise in confronting Obama is because he doesn't like how politicians aren't truthful. This coming from a guy who a) lied about buying a business, b) lied about the revenue of that business, c) lied about being "undecided" in who is going to vote for, d) lied about his income, e) evaded taxes, f) skipped out on a hospital bill, g) didn't pay traffic fines in Arizona (bench warrant?) h) is rumored to have hit his wife in front of his kid.

Yet, McCain and the Republicans want to claim Joe the Plumber represents America. I don't know about you, but I have never evaded taxes, skipped out on bills or tickets and I certainly never hit my wife. I have a feeling most Americans have never done those things either.

I think it's funny how we're less than 3 weeks from an important election, and the McCain campaign are busy defending some dipshit from Toledo.

I'm convinced the Republicans have collectively lost their minds. They still don't seem to understand exactly why it is that the country are so dissatified with them and can still manage to convince themselves that up is down and left is right. The right-wing spin on "Joe the Plumber" now is that he is being visciously attacked by the liberal media because he dared to ask a politician a question. Just like Palin was visciously attacked by the liberal media because they didn't like a pro-choice woman. The problem with this analysis is that it is simply wrong. "Joe the Plumber" has not been attacked, he has been exposed. Exposed as someone who wasn't who he said he was and so couldn't be the symbol the right wants him to be. In today's Washington Time's Michael Barone writes:

Mr. Wurzelbacher is the man who, in a moment caught on YouTube, confronts Barack Obama on his plan to raise taxes on people like him. Mr. Obama, sotto voce, replies that he wants to "spread the wealth around." In the third consecutive week in which the headlines of the financial crisis have prompted both candidates to denounce "Wall Street greed," the image of those whom Mr. Obama would tax higher was suddenly not an investment banker but a plumber.

Even today, people are still trying to make the case that Obama's plans hurt Joe, when in fact they help him. Up is down, right is left. Fortunately, the media are much more diversified than they were just four years ago and they can't get away with it the way they used to.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's funny how we're less than 3 weeks
> from an important election, and the McCain
> campaign are busy defending some dipshit from
> Toledo.

I think it's even more funny that we are less than 3 weeks from an election and the Obama campaign and surrogates are trying to destroy some dipshit from Ohio because he asked a question they didn't like.

If the price of change is that you can't ask a question of a politician, regardless of your economic circumstance, or who you are in life, then there is obviously something wrong with the folks putting out this "change" message.

Obviously they felt the threat from the question was pretty serious if they were willing to go to such lengths to destroy this guy.

Amazing how you all choose to ignore the "big brother" aspect to this.

It's like talking to a wall...


Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> I think it's even more funny that we are less than
> 3 weeks from an election and the Obama campaign
> and surrogates are trying to destroy some dipshit
> from Ohio because he asked a question they didn't
> like.
>
> If the price of change is that you can't ask a
> question of a politician, regardless of your
> economic circumstance, or who you are in life,
> then there is obviously something wrong with the
> folks putting out this "change" message.
>
> Obviously they felt the threat from the question
> was pretty serious if they were willing to go to
> such lengths to destroy this guy.
>
> Amazing how you all choose to ignore the "big
> brother" aspect to this.

Yes it is. You want to ignore the patently obvious, while I just choose to ignore the issues that no one actually seems to have a good handle on.

You also choose to ignore the guaranteed tax increase in 2 years or less if Obama is elected. Good luck with that. All this BS about taxes right now is just that - BS that in 2 years will be meaningless.

You also should ask yourself this question.

Why is it that France, Canada and other countries have moved to more Conservative governments in recent years? Look into Canada in particular - the country everyone wants to hold up as a liberal/socialist bastion that is a shining example to the down trodden masses of the US.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>> trying to destroy some dipshit from Ohio


Yeah, it's really so Orwellian to debunk this jerkoff's disengenuous attempt to mislead the general public. He's a fraud and is getting exactly what he deserves.

I hope this destroys his entire plumbing career!! You'll never plunge a toilet in this town ever again, buster!

How did he mislead the public again? He asked a question, and Obama opened his mouth and answered him.

Obama made the "spreading the wealth" statement, and now he and his crew are working overtime to make the story about the plumber and his personal problems. You guys are sitting here laughing it up, and the sad part is you don't even realize how many people are paying attention to the fact that this guy is being destroyed for asking a question. They overplayed this when Palin was selected, and have since pulled back, now they are doing it to this guy in Ohio - only this time they are doing it to someone a lot of people look at as a "normal" person. So what, the guy has personal problems - I am sure all of us that post here do also.

So the lesson we take from this is never question a politician or your personal life will be spread all over the world because people can't stand it when you make their candidate look bad? Great message.

I've got no problem discussing whether his actual proposals make sense or not, or discussing European models, or whatever else. What I am objecting to, is holding this guy up as an example of someone who would be harmed by Obama's tax plan when that's just not the case. Why do you believe it's wrong to point that out?



Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also should ask yourself this question.
>
> Why is it that France, Canada and other countries
> have moved to more Conservative governments in
> recent years? Look into Canada in particular - the
> country everyone wants to hold up as a
> liberal/socialist bastion that is a shining
> example to the down trodden masses of the US.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's even more funny that we are less than
> 3 weeks from an election and the Obama campaign
> and surrogates are trying to destroy some dipshit
> from Ohio because he asked a question they didn't
> like.
>
>

I think it is funnier how McCain claims to be a defender of freedom while using his lawyers to suppress the votes of people who have lost their homes through foreclosure.

Yes, that has a lot to do with this issue doesn't it. Change the subject again.

"SPREAD THE WEALTH". Obama said it, now live with it.

When we can't question our politicians for legitimate reasons, we should all be afraid. That you all sit here and try to defend it is pretty funny.

Again, Obama is scared, and so it seems, are you all.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is funnier how McCain claims to be a
> defender of freedom while using his lawyers to
> suppress the votes of people who have lost their
> homes through foreclosure.

Did you know that repeating lies don't make them anymore true? It is just one of those facts of life. You seem really desperate. Posting all day as if it might make a difference. If you feel so strongly, why not pen a letter to the editor of your local paper, get out and volunteer, phone bank from your home, etc. How many votes have you swayed here with your lies? Or, do you just come here to get that affirmation you need from your online friends?

Oh yeah, we're scared...

Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> Again, Obama is scared, and so it seems, are you
> all.

It sure seems that way. All of you keep posting here and stroking yourselves as if to ensure you are on the right side of this issue. There is the one thread you all have where all you do is post "honest" republican links. It is pretty funny.

But hey, keep up the good work. :)

SPREAD THE WEALTH! Yes, exactly!

Enough of crooked polictians giving OUR tax dollars to their filthy rich buddies.

I'd rather see my tax dollars go for programs to help people, not one person.

Right - this from the Obama side where he sits on a couple of different boards that gave millions of dollars to pet projects of his friends and contributors.

Same old BS in a different package. He will just help a different group of filthy rich people in the end. And also pay folks on the dole already to keep voting for democrats. Oh sorry, maybe you were talking about his rich friends that RAN Fannie Mae (not just lobbyists for them) who made between $20M and $90M running those entities into the ground. Right.

Please, you are just lashing out with more BS now. I still don't get why you are so afraid that you have to keep pushing these moronic responses. You have nothing better to point out that is factual other than the dirt on the life of some guy in Ohio?

Lol

LOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I think it is funnier how McCain claims to be a
> > defender of freedom while using his lawyers to
> > suppress the votes of people who have lost
> their
> > homes through foreclosure.
>
> Did you know that repeating lies don't make them
> anymore true? It is just one of those facts of
> life. You seem really desperate. Posting all day
> as if it might make a difference. If you feel so
> strongly, why not pen a letter to the editor of
> your local paper, get out and volunteer, phone
> bank from your home, etc. How many votes have you
> swayed here with your lies? Or, do you just come
> here to get that affirmation you need from your
> online friends?

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 16 after The Michigan Messenger reported on its Web site that Macomb County Republican Party Chairman James Carabelli told one of its reporters that “we will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.”

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right - this from the Obama side where he sits on
> a couple of different boards that gave millions of
> dollars to pet projects of his friends and
> contributors.
>
> Same old BS in a different package. He will just
> help a different group of filthy rich people in
> the end. And also pay folks on the dole already to
> keep voting for democrats. Oh sorry, maybe you
> were talking about his rich friends that RAN
> Fannie Mae (not just lobbyists for them) who made
> between $20M and $90M running those entities into
> the ground. Right.
>
> Please, you are just lashing out with more BS now.
> I still don't get why you are so afraid that you
> have to keep pushing these moronic responses. You
> have nothing better to point out that is factual
> other than the dirt on the life of some guy in
> Ohio?
>
> Lol


The guy making $90 million from Fannie Mae is Daniel Mudd, a Republican. Big-time donor to Bush and McCain. He is the one who in 2005 instituted a highly aggressive buying program for subprime mortgage securities that was questioned by internal management at Fannie Mae.

As if all forms of taxation aren't a form of "spreading the wealth." What a stupid talking point. It's the whole freakin' point of having taxes in the first place. Every president has used taxes to redistribute wealth. But I guess when you're Joe Sixpack, plain common sense takes a backseat to irrational fear.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As if all forms of taxation aren't a form of
> "spreading the wealth." What a stupid talking
> point. It's the whole freakin' point of having
> taxes in the first place. Every president has
> used taxes to redistribute wealth.

What a stupid, uninformed statement.

The Constitution did not authorize taxation as a form of wealth redistribution. Originally only the States could levy direct taxes, with the Federal government getting its income from tariffs and consumption type taxes. The 16th amendment allowed for more direct taxation by the federal government, but that was much later, and the tax rates were something like 1% to 7% on incomes over $1.5M (in the early 1900s). Later as we had various wars, the numbers started creeping up - but for the most part the money was used for direct costs of running the government and the military.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Quote

Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

So then when Reagan came in we had a significant overhaul of the taxes which certainly helped. Unfortunately Congress continued to increase spending...

Quote

...

The 1986 tax act also represented a temporary reversal in the evolution of the tax system. Though called an income tax, the Federal tax system had for many years actually been a hybrid income and consumption tax, with the balance shifting toward or away from a consumption tax with many of the major tax acts. The 1986 tax act shifted the balance once again toward the income tax. Of greatest importance in this regard was the return to references to economic depreciation in the formulation of the capital cost recovery system and the significant new restrictions on the use of Individual Retirement Accounts.

Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax increase featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.

...

If the Feds continue to increase spending, it won't matter. Under Obama, that is all set to happen - as I have not heard a program he plans to cut yet other than Defense spending. And there is only so much of that he can cut and none of it right away. Since he has proposed dozens of new spending programs, how exactly do you think he will get all this money? Just by his current tax proposals? No way.

A pretty good argument can be made that the Republican agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy is also a form of income redistribution--from future generations. Since Ronald Reagan we have put nearly 10 trillion dollars on the national credit card to pay for our current consumption and are leaving that bill to be paid by our children, grandchildren, and their children. If Republicans are so against "income redistribution" and "welfare" they should insist that adjust spending and taxation levels to the point where all current obligations are paid off within 10 or 20 years. I won't hold my breath.


TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As if all forms of taxation aren't a form of
> "spreading the wealth." What a stupid talking
> point. It's the whole freakin' point of having
> taxes in the first place. Every president has
> used taxes to redistribute wealth. But I guess
> when you're Joe Sixpack, plain common sense takes
> a backseat to irrational fear.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As if all forms of taxation aren't a form of
> > "spreading the wealth." What a stupid talking
> > point. It's the whole freakin' point of having
> > taxes in the first place. Every president has
> > used taxes to redistribute wealth.
>
> What a stupid, uninformed statement.
>
> The Constitution did not authorize taxation as a
> form of wealth redistribution. Originally only the
> States could levy direct taxes, with the Federal
> government getting its income from tariffs and
> consumption type taxes. The 16th amendment allowed
> for more direct taxation by the federal
> government, but that was much later, and the tax
> rates were something like 1% to 7% on incomes over
> $1.5M (in the early 1900s). Later as we had
> various wars, the numbers started creeping up -
> but for the most part the money was used for
> direct costs of running the government and the
> military.
>
> http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes
> /ustax.shtml
>
>
> Though social policies sometimes governed the
> course of tax policy even in the early days of the
> Republic, the nature of these policies did not
> extend either to the collection of taxes so as to
> equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of
> redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas
> Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general
> Welfare" clause:
>
> "To take from one, because it is thought his
> own industry and that of his father has acquired
> too much, in order to spare to others who (or
> whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry
> and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first
> principle of association, "to guarantee to
> everyone a free exercise of his industry and the
> fruits acquired by it."
>
>
> So then when Reagan came in we had a significant
> overhaul of the taxes which certainly helped.
> Unfortunately Congress continued to increase
> spending...
>
>
> ...
>
> The 1986 tax act also represented a temporary
> reversal in the evolution of the tax system.
> Though called an income tax, the Federal tax
> system had for many years actually been a hybrid
> income and consumption tax, with the balance
> shifting toward or away from a consumption tax
> with many of the major tax acts. The 1986 tax act
> shifted the balance once again toward the income
> tax. Of greatest importance in this regard was the
> return to references to economic depreciation in
> the formulation of the capital cost recovery
> system and the significant new restrictions on the
> use of Individual Retirement Accounts.
>
> Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose
> as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite
> this increase in the overall tax burden,
> persistent budget deficits due to even higher
> levels of government spending created near
> constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990
> the Congress enacted a significant tax increase
> featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31
> percent. Shortly after his election, President
> Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a
> second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top
> tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent
> surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax
> rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward
> lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but,
> as it turns out, only temporarily.
>
> ...
>
>
> If the Feds continue to increase spending, it
> won't matter. Under Obama, that is all set to
> happen - as I have not heard a program he plans to
> cut yet other than Defense spending. And there is
> only so much of that he can cut and none of it
> right away. Since he has proposed dozens of new
> spending programs, how exactly do you think he
> will get all this money? Just by his current tax
> proposals? No way.


Thomas Jefferson also believed in the Separation of Church and State.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A pretty good argument can be made that the
> Republican agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy is
> also a form of income redistribution--from future
> generations. Since Ronald Reagan we have put
> nearly 10 trillion dollars on the national credit
> card to pay for our current consumption and are
> leaving that bill to be paid by our children,
> grandchildren, and their children. If Republicans
> are so against "income redistribution" and
> "welfare" they should insist that adjust spending
> and taxation levels to the point where all current
> obligations are paid off within 10 or 20 years. I
> won't hold my breath.
>
>


You should read "Running on Empty" by Peter G. Peterson. http://books.google.com/books?id=8S2MHQAACAAJ&dq=Running+on+empty

By 2040, by the most optimistic estmitate (the CBO, GAO and OMB have slightly different projections, the most optimistic predicts 2040) Entitlements will equal 100% of Government revenues.

This is not a "republican" or "democrat" blame game. Both parties ignore this issue and help to continue it and make it worse. Bush added onto it, as much as the republican party is against entitlements, with the medicare prescription drug program.

That's why the subtitle of the book by the former secretary of commerce under Nixon is "How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and what Americans Can Do about it"

This is an excerpt from an illuminating article on Salon.com by a writer claiming (tongue in cheek) to be "Joe the Plumber"'s brother "Bob the Banker". I have a number of high-income friends who never pass up an opportunity to tell me "how they are going to get slaughtered" if Obama gets elected. I suspect most of them make more than 280k but this is a good example of how somebody in that range would fare. You can find the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/10/21/taxes/


Anyway, let's get back to my story. I'm a typical middle-class American. I run a small family bank in Ohio. I'm no Master of the Universe, no hedge-fund manipulator. I have a couple of dozen employees. I work hard. I obey the laws. I have a family. But if Barack Trotsky Obama wins, I can kiss it all goodbye. I've done well for myself, but $280,000 a year doesn't go as far as it used to, even here in Akron.

The numbers don't lie. So here they are.*

So, as I said, I make $280,000 annually after business expenses. I'm married and filing jointly. Under Obama, my itemized deductions would actually increase slightly — I'd get $49,420 in itemized deductions, while under McCain I'd get $48,975. But my personal exemptions would increase slightly under McCain — he'd give me $6,911, whereas I'd only get $6,132 from Obama.

That leaves my taxable income at $213, 766 under Obama, $213,433 under McCain. Now we have to factor in the bracket cutoff, which for 2009 is $208,850. Anything below that figure for married couples filing jointly is taxed at the fourth tier, 28 percent. Any income above it, until you get up to near $400,000, is taxed at the fifth tier. And this is where the raving income-redistribution scheme of Barack Robespierre Obama kicks in.

As you can see, my taxable income is about $5,000 higher than the cutoff. McCain is going to tax that $5,000 at the current rate, which is 33 percent. But Obama's crazed plan calls for raising that rate to — get ready for it — 35 percent.

And here's what this means. Under McCain, my total tax bill would be $48,254. Under Obama, it would be $48,511.

That's a difference of $257. I'll say it again: Two hundred and fifty-seven dollars.

That's not two hundred and fifty-seven dollars I, or America, can afford.

Again - I don't have to repeat myself, I will let Barney Frank say it for me. This is what you are going to get in a couple of years.

And let me qualify (in response to Bob), just in case people didn't understand me. I want them to CUT SPENDING. With the tax revenues we get now (which were at record highs as of last year I believe), we should be able to run the government without massive overspending. The problem is both sides of the aisle seem to believe that we can just spend money on everything. They refuse to cut spending, and even with Obama, the only place you are going to see cuts is in Defense (which happens to employ a large group of people in the DC area), and he has outlined dozens of new ways to spend even more money. Honestly I don't get it. But as I said, Barney Frank says it just so folks aren't missing this:

````````````````
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

Yet another speech from the defeatist Republicans. Yawn.

Yep, Barney Frank says it all, doesn't he?

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> By 2040, by the most optimistic estmitate (the
> CBO, GAO and OMB have slightly different
> projections, the most optimistic predicts 2040)
> Entitlements will equal 100% of Government
> revenues.
>

Actually, debt managment will hit 100% long before entitlements do.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, Barney Frank says it all, doesn't he?


Actually John Maynard Keynes says it all.

Yes, during the Great Depression when unemployment was up above 30%, he advocated that the government spend money to stimulate economic growth. The thing is, unemployment right now is not much more than it was during the best of Clinton's time in office (touted by MSM as wonderful levels of unemployment).

http://www.chuckbraman.com/Writing/WritingFilesPhilosophy/keynes.htm

Quote

...
Keynes new theory, on the other hand, conveyed a politically much more palatable solution to unemployment: according to Keynes, the solution to unemployment was a growth in government spending. The particular form of government spending advocated by Keynes was for the government to purposely adopt a policy of budget deficits; this he called "fiscal policy."

To arrive at this seemingly simple conclusion, however, Keynes developed a highly complex argumentation brimming with new economic terms and concepts of his own devising, such as multipliers, consumption and saving functions, the marginal efficiency of capital, liquidity preference, I-S curve, and many others.

The essence of Keynes' theory, however, involves a shift from classical economics' concern with the production of wealth to a concern with the consumption of wealth. According to Keynes, Say's Law is not true; that is, supply does not create its own demand. Rather, according to Keynes, supply is capable of outstripping demand, with the result that goods remain unsold, and production and employment are correspondingly cut back. As a result, the solution to unemployment, according to Keynes, is not to reduce wages and prices, as the Classicals advocated, but to increase consumption through the spending of money by the government.
...

Thus, Keynes believed, in order to "get the economy moving again," the government must itself begin spending money, since the general population is unable to do so sufficiently. How, and where the government spends its money, and whether such spending fulfills any desirable public or private purpose beyond its economic function, Keynes held, is irrelevant. For the sole purpose of such spending is to buy goods that would otherwise remain unsold, so that the sellers of those goods can in turn "buy," i.e., employ, currently unemployed workers. Government spending, for Keynes, fills the gap that necessarily must exist in a free economy between savings and investment, a gap which, if not filled by the government's spending, would be filled with unemployed people and unsold goods.
...

Of course, back when he made these observations, the idea of "spending" he conceived was magnitudes less than what would be needed today assuming this would even help in our current circumstance. Assuming that the debt payments will soon outstrip any other form of government payments soon - how do you propose to get those items into balance when the new policy is again based on spending well beyond our means? Based on all of these presumptions, and that the government doesn't reduce spending, it is pretty obvious they will be raising taxes on folks in much larger amounts than what they are promising now to get elected.

Let's compare what Barney Frank said to what millions of Americans heard what John McSimilar say:

"I voted for George Bush 90% of the time" and "The fundamentals of our economy are strong".

Barney Frank is not running for President, ergo you fail.

Barney Frank represents the current majority in Congress that would be shaping and passing laws in the future.

What McCain said doesn't even bear a remote resemblance to what Barney Frank has stated.

You are the weakest link.

.
Attachments:

Now THAT is hilarious!

Lopter performing self promotion.

That is hilarious.

Again, what relevance does your comic have in response to what I said?

ZERO

RV if you think I posted the RV got OWNED post your wrong, but that doesn't surprise me.

Oooooooh Yeeeeeah!

That's because I posted it, RV. Now concede before I spill fruit punch all over your 4 sizes too small Fruit-of-the-Loom t-shirt.

Attachments:

Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as has been pointed out many times by others here). Too bad you don't use your obvious photo manipulation skills for serious work.

You are seriously better than me, I admit it.

Lol.

If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly voter or some other person that can only post in anonymity since they never say anything of relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

Since you referenced me by name, I feel like I have to respond. How, exactly, are you less anonymous than me? Did you post your real name and address somewhere that I missed?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as
> has been pointed out many times by others here).
> Too bad you don't use your obvious photo
> manipulation skills for serious work.
>
> You are seriously better than me, I admit it.
>
> Lol.
>
> If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly
> voter or some other person that can only post in
> anonymity since they never say anything of
> relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I
> know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

I do not post as Lopter, or under any other name other than my own.




Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, obviously you missed your calling Lopter (as
> has been pointed out many times by others here).
> Too bad you don't use your obvious photo
> manipulation skills for serious work.
>
> You are seriously better than me, I admit it.
>
> Lol.
>
> If not lopter on the sidelines, then possibly
> voter or some other person that can only post in
> anonymity since they never say anything of
> relevance. Keep up the self-stroking though, I
> know it makes you all feel better. Lol.

Yes well, I didn't mention you Meep now did I. I am only speaking of the folks her that aren't registered users such as Voter. Not that I care honestly - I think it is funny when you all post with such informative "names" when you want to make a point.

When you actually register voter, at least it implies you "might" post under the same moniker each time - although there have been indications in the past that you use multiple names as well.

Lopter though is just a troll.

That's it. I don't honestly care other than to point it out. Since Lopter doesn't seem to have anything to do other than post cute pictures - probably based on how he reads his magazines also.

But since I am just intruding on your self-stroking space, I am sure that soon, like many before me - I will get bored with your implied self-importance as well and move on. I am sure you wait with anticipation for the day.

Carry on :)

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter though is just a troll.
>
> That's it. I don't honestly care other than to
> point it out. Since Lopter doesn't seem to have
> anything to do other than post cute pictures -
> probably based on how he reads his magazines
> also.

Register Voter I think you have been listen to much McCain double talk, it's melting you brain. Listen to what you saying, you are a hypocrite.

a) You don't care, but you want to point it out???

b) Lopter doesn't have anything better to do??? Well then you must not have anything better to do either.

After all is said and done the consensus seems to be that most small businesses do probably pull in over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I was looking more for a general sense of things, a reality check if you will. Many thanks to the serious and not so serious posters who took the time to address the question or at least to amuse.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all is said and done the consensus seems to
> be that most small businesses do probably pull in
> over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously
> this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I
> was looking more for a general sense of things, a
> reality check if you will. Many thanks to the
> serious and not so serious posters who took the
> time to address the question or at least to amuse.


Yes, they do "pull in" over $250k, but if you actually ever owned your own business, you would know that what you "pull in" and what you are taxed on are two different figures.

I ran an online business between 1996 and 1999, and at our peak, we had just over $290,000 in revenue. I never paid a dime in taxes, because all three years, we operated at a loss. The only income I received from that business was a few checks to pay the minimum payment on my credit card when I had paid a distributor with my credit card.

I know people who "pull in" well over a million dollars, and they are sole proprietors, but they are lucky to make $135,000 in profit after paying suppliers, leases, utilities, and salaries.

If you believe you'll have to pay taxes on revenue, you've been watching the wrong channel. If you don't understand the difference, you probably aren't a business owner. Either way, don't fall into the ideological trap of a campaign trying to create an advantage out of a disadvantage.

I forgot to mention, if we, as wage-earners, paid taxes the same way corporations paid taxes, we would practically pay nothing in taxes.

I cannot deduct all of my expenses and costs from my wages.

I pay taxes on my raw wages, before I pay $22 a day for parking ($5,500 a year), and the cost of gas and maintenance on my car in order to get to work, and I pay $10 for lunch in downtown DC, and have to pay for dry cleaning on my suit, and I pay for the cell phone and EVDO card for my laptop, plus the continuing education to advance my technical skills to add to the productivity of my company, plus there's the utilities and housing costs I need in order to be able to live and continue to work, and the food, and basic necessities, and everything else.

Corporations deduct all of those things from their revenue before reporting their taxable profits. We don't have that luxury.

If you are a corporation, and even if you're just "joe plumber", you should incorporate, you don't pay taxes on your raw income, you pay taxes on your profit, your after expense money.

Obama is not talking about changing the tax system, he is only saying the tax rate of the current system may go up for people who make more than $250,000 in PROFIT.

It is so discouraging that after all the information that's been posted in this thread, all Libertarian1 takes away from it is that "most small businesses do probably pull in over $250K." Did you read the thread? As Bob accurately points out there is a huge difference between revenue and profit. Most small businesses DO NOT make more than $250k IN PROFIT.



Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all is said and done the consensus seems to
> be that most small businesses do probably pull in
> over $250K. That sounds right to me. Obviously
> this is an informal and unscientific forum, but I
> was looking more for a general sense of things, a
> reality check if you will. Many thanks to the
> serious and not so serious posters who took the
> time to address the question or at least to amuse.

Don't argue with Libertarian1. He's a dittohead.

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax
> rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the
> self-employment tax on those making more than
> $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from
> 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor
> and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all
> the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many
> Democrats in Congress have proposed making all
> small businesses (including S corporations) pay
> this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax
> rate that high would be the highest marginal rate
> faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.


I have an S-Corp. I don't pay taxes on my S-Corp. My S-Corp is a pass-through. I pay taxes on my personal income. Any business owner that is large enough to pay taxes on the corporate level should be an LLC, not an S-Corp. As for the sole proprietor and partner, it takes $500 to register as an S-Corp. It also makes sense from a liability and tax standpoint to be an S-Corp. Most "partners" I know of who work in lobbying and law firms know this and are S-Corps already.

I love how Republicans lump payroll taxes in with income taxes when they want to make tax rates seem high but then exclude them when they want to claim that lower income people pay no income taxes. So, you get "the sole proprietor rate would rise to a staggering 50.3%"--which includes both the employer and employee part of Social Security and Medicare, but "Obama wants to give a tax cut (refundable tax credit) to people who don't pay income taxes--that's welfare!"


owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax
> rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the
> self-employment tax on those making more than
> $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from
> 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor
> and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all
> the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many
> Democrats in Congress have proposed making all
> small businesses (including S corporations) pay
> this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax
> rate that high would be the highest marginal rate
> faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

Here is the Obama Tax Cut calculator. Notice that the income level starts at $20K. That's because people pay 15% taxes with an AGI of $15K. Obama takes into consideration the deductions you would get if you have kids by starting at $20K. This totally blows apart the rightwing nutjobs' contention that Obama gives tax breaks to people who pay no taxes...

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2008 10:57AM by WashingToneLocian.

The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. They actually receive a net payment from the federal income tax system (meaning from the taxpayers) equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.

Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.

Consequently, to say, as Obama says, that his tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love how Republicans lump payroll taxes in with
> income taxes when they want to make tax rates seem
> high but then exclude them when they want to claim
> that lower income people pay no income taxes. So,
> you get "the sole proprietor rate would rise to a
> staggering 50.3%"--which includes both the
> employer and employee part of Social Security and
> Medicare, but "Obama wants to give a tax cut
> (refundable tax credit) to people who don't pay
> income taxes--that's welfare!"

I love how democrats conveniently ignore the fact that Obama wants to end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. I also enjoy seeing Democrats ignore the hike in capital gains taxes that Obama wants to impose and my personal favorite, never mentioning the fact that Obama supports raising the inheritance "death" tax to 45% on estates over $3.5M. Any idea what an increase in capital gains taxes will do to an already volitile stock market? Take a look at the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and 1976? Let's also take a look at venture capital investing when capital gains taxes are overly burdonsome. Even Bill Clinton recognized that when he signed legislation that cut the capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent. After he did that, the economy grew and investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all increased. It is actually pretty fucking simple, and for Obama to ignore it is irresponsible.

I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy over fruitless issues while missing the big picture. That shows their fundamental lack of understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME" with you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".

Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in hell at winning the election thanks to the same policy that you stand behind. Concede.

Republicans are Useless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy
> over fruitless issues while missing the big
> picture. That shows their fundamental lack of
> understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME" with
> you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".
>
> Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in
> hell at winning the election thanks to the same
> policy that you stand behind. Concede.

Do you really enjoy it? Your definition of big picture is the life size poster of George Michael you wank to daily.

Who's ignoring these issues? Obama has said clearly he wants to raise the payroll tax cap for people earning more than 250k. He's also said he wants to raise the capital gains tax rate to 20%--the rate you yourself said caused the economy to grow, and investments, jobs, and tax revenues to all increase. I agree, pretty fucking simple. I don't think changing the capital gains rate will actually have much effect this time around though--since nobody has any capital gains. Funny how that happened even though Shrub lowered the rate to 15%.


Laughable Wrote:
> I love how democrats conveniently ignore the fact
> that Obama wants to end the Social Security
> payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in
> earnings. I also enjoy seeing Democrats ignore
> the hike in capital gains taxes that Obama wants
> to impose and my personal favorite, never
> mentioning the fact that Obama supports raising
> the inheritance "death" tax to 45% on estates over
> $3.5M. Any idea what an increase in capital gains
> taxes will do to an already volitile stock market?
> Take a look at the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and
> 1976? Let's also take a look at venture capital
> investing when capital gains taxes are overly
> burdonsome. Even Bill Clinton recognized that
> when he signed legislation that cut the
> capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent.
> After he did that, the economy grew and
> investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all
> increased. It is actually pretty fucking simple,
> and for Obama to ignore it is irresponsible.

And yet today, we have this from Camp Obama:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/obama-alters-ta.html

Quote

...
Facing criticism from John McCain that his tax plan constitutes "welfare," Barack Obama recently added a work requirement to one of his proposals.

"They started saying this was welfare," said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we'll simply add a work requirement."

Goolsbee discussed the change to Obama's universal mortgage credit while debating McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday.

The purpose of Obama's 10 percent universal mortgage credit is to aid taxpayers who do not itemize when filing taxes. The Obama campaign estimates that it would provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Goolsbee referred to the number of non-working Americans who would benefit from the original understanding of Obama's plan as an insignificant "sliver" when compared to the much larger number of working Americans who would benefit from Obama's plan.

Although the number of non-working beneficiaries would have been just a "sliver" under the original understanding of Obama's plan, Goolsbee said the Democratic nominee's economic team decided to add a work requirement to it in order to block McCain from being able to characterize any aspect of his plan as "welfare."

"When did this change? I'm just curious," an incredulous Holtz-Eakin asked Goolsbee.

"About two weeks ago," replied Goolsbee, adding that when the proposal was announced in September 2007, 98 percent of its benefits went to workers.

The work requirement on Obama's universal mortgage credit was never announced publicly, prompting Holtz-Eakin to suggest that it was just made up for purposes of the CFR debate.

"I think they just made it up," Holtz-Eakin told ABC News. "They will say anything in the moment. This is like trying to pin Jello to the wall."
...

Evidently they thought that had some issues they had to address.

Again though, all of this is so ridiculous. In 2 years (or less) if Obama is elected, I guarantee their will be a HUGE tax increase. I don't have "factual" knowledge of this, but if you look at history (which many of you appear to dismiss as irrelevant) you will see that Democrats will run on tax cuts to the middle class to get elected, and then invariably raise taxes by large amounts once they are in office. Even many of the Republicans have had to do this, but usually they will temper the amount of the increase.

The liberal side argument folks here want to chide the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off their skids once he is in office?

Well, I kind of believe that if McCain is elected he's going to personally burn to the ground the houses of anybody that ever opposed him. Mind you, I don't have any "facts" to back that up but you know, I just kind of think it's true. You want to take a stab at telling me why he won't do that?


Registered Voter Wrote:
> The liberal side argument folks here want to chide
> the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on
> the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will
> concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs
> here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama
> and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off
> their skids once he is in office?

So you don't believe they will raise taxes? I gather from your idiotic response that you do, but are unwilling to acknowledge it. You want to believe in fantasies that is your own affair, but I would think you get enough of that when Vince comes over for "sleep overs"

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The liberal side argument folks here want to chide
> the conservatives for ignoring all this whoohah on
> the $250K tax issue. Lets say I personally will
> concede the point on that issue. Any of the libs
> here want to take a stab at telling me why Obama
> and a Democratic Congress won't blow tax rates off
> their skids once he is in office?


Because they want to solidify their majority.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:

> Because they want to solidify their majority.

Barney Frank is already salivating over raising taxes and has stated that. He is not one that stops at the $250K barrier as has been shown in the past. I hope your faith in their restraint is rewarded.

Petty Punk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans are Useless Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I enjoy watching Republicans get all in a tizzy
> > over fruitless issues while missing the big
> > picture. That shows their fundamental lack of
> > understanding. It's all about "ME, ME, ME"
> with
> > you guys, when it should be about "US and WE".
> >
> > Let's face it, you stand a snowball's chance in
> > hell at winning the election thanks to the same
> > policy that you stand behind. Concede.
>
> Do you really enjoy it? Your definition of big
> picture is the life size poster of George Michael
> you wank to daily.

Oh, you mean like your poster of Mark Foley with his young boy intern sharing an ice cream float with two straws that happens to hang over your bed? Or is it the one of Larry Craig playing footsie? You likely own both.

The truth is, that no matter what you say, you'll still lose the election. Get used to life as a LOSER.

Republican Family Values? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The truth is, that no matter what you say, you'll
> still lose the election. Get used to life as a
> LOSER.


Does it hurt when all your other fast food coworkers call you that? Is that why you are so angry? I know it must suck to have some pimply faced immigrant call you a loser. Don't worry, they say low budget fast food chains do well in a tight economy. You may still hang onto your job.

WTL, you picking up on the Lopter tactics of engagement now? :)

This has as little relevance here as it does in the other thread you started for it.

Dude, I've been respectful to you and have tried to have a discussion based on facts, not grade school taunts. All I know to do is judge the candidates based on what they say they plan to do. You acknowledged that you weren't basing your "guarantee" on facts but on some history I don't think you can prove. My taxes haven't gone up (except as a result of my income increasing) my entire working life--have yours? Spare me your response if you can't keep it respectful.


Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you don't believe they will raise taxes? I
> gather from your idiotic response that you do, but
> are unwilling to acknowledge it. You want to
> believe in fantasies that is your own affair, but
> I would think you get enough of that when Vince
> comes over for "sleep overs"

As if your response was respectful to my statement and question. Please don't get all bent that I "disrespect you" by bringing up Vince in the same sentance, when you can't even be bothered to make a respectful response.

You want to be flip with my question, I will flip it right back at you with interest.

Enough said.

Fooolio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican Family Values? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Oh, you mean like your poster of Mark Foley with his young boy intern sharing >an ice cream float with two straws that happens to hang over your bed? Or is >it the one of Larry Craig playing footsie? You likely own both. The truth is, >that no matter what you say, you'll still lose the election. Get used to life >as a LOSER.
>
>
> Does it hurt when all your other fast food
> coworkers call you that? Is that why you are so
> angry? I know it must suck to have some pimply
> faced immigrant call you a loser. Don't worry,
> they say low budget fast food chains do well in a
> tight economy. You may still hang onto your job.

Spoken like a true irrelevant, entry-level drone. Perhaps one day, you'll fight your way up to middle management overseeing a call center in Bangalore. It's not my fault that your best years were in high school and you peaked too early in life.

So who's going to win the election again? Let's hear it. Concede already.

Republican Eye for the (Un-) Straight Guys Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spoken like a true irrelevant, entry-level drone.
> Perhaps one day, you'll fight your way up to
> middle management overseeing a call center in
> Bangalore. It's not my fault that your best years
> were in high school and you peaked too early in
> life.
>
> So who's going to win the election again? Let's
> hear it. Concede already.

Good news for you, McD's stock is up 11% today. Do you get stock options as a cook? Oh, and next time, easy on the mustard.

Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you like to do.

So, who's going to win the election? We all missed your response.

Chuck Norris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level
> ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you like
> to do.
>
> So, who's going to win the election? We all
> missed your response.

Chuckie,
I don't care what they told you at the interview, VP does NOT stand for Vegetable Preparer. You are still a fry cook in the eyes of everybody else.

First, Chuck Norris believes he's a vice president at a fortune 100 company. Good for him, he's obviously had a few too many drinks before 6pm, and is trying to use bluster to win an argument.

Second, none of this matters anymore. Obama is dangerous now. That's the new mantra.

Third, next week we'll be treated to a "bin laden tape" that one way or the other will make people want to vote for McCain. Mister cave dwelling kidney dialysis patient will either endorse Obama or plead with us to not vote for McCain. Either way, it will be a convenient boost to McCain's sagging poll numbers.

Look for it somewhere between Wednesday and Friday. Friday is probably best, about mid-afternoon, because that is the best time in the news cycle, it leaves very little time for it to be disected by the media, and gives voters an entire weekend to be left to believe in it. Then only two days to decide to vote for McCain because otherwise, Bin Laden will destroy us for our freedoms.

Mrs.T. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Norris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Me = VP @ Fortune 100 Co. You = Entry-level
> > ANALyst. Stress the ANAL, as we all know you
> like
> > to do.
> >
> > So, who's going to win the election? We all
> > missed your response.
>
> Chuckie,
> I don't care what they told you at the interview,
> VP does NOT stand for Vegetable Preparer. You are
> still a fry cook in the eyes of everybody else.


Funny enough, I saw a commercial tonight for some sort of microwavable food, where a tech support guy comes into the lunch room, and a "VP" is trying to figure out how to "add water, microwave, drain and serve" his lunch. The tech asks "How did you become a VP?" and the "VP" responds, "They didn't want to pay me more money, so they gave me this awesome title" (or something like that, you get the gist of it.)

So here we go again , with all the lies, I have a small satellite dish business in a good year I will clear 50 thousand. When I say clear thats the money I have to pay for my personal bills and fun. To me if your making over 250K your not a small business. US census say a small business is 500 employes or less. Well 100 or 200 employes seems very big to me. So lets be real and cut the crap. My dream is to make 500 k a year some day, thats the day I will turn in to a republican and spread the lies with the rest of the fat cats. rich get richer cause poor people are stupid.

satellite steve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So here we go again , with all the lies, I have a
> small satellite dish business in a good year I
> will clear 50 thousand. When I say clear thats
> the money I have to pay for my personal bills and
> fun. To me if your making over 250K your not a
> small business. US census say a small business is
> 500 employes or less. Well 100 or 200 employes
> seems very big to me. So lets be real and cut the
> crap. My dream is to make 500 k a year some day,
> thats the day I will turn in to a republican and
> spread the lies with the rest of the fat cats.
> rich get richer cause poor people are stupid.


How much do you make in revenue? I'm sure if you can take home $50k, you bring in more than $250k. I bet you do at least $400,000 in sales.

The people who say they make more than 250k and will pay more in taxes either don't actually own a business or they are really bad at managing their money and don't understand enough about tax code to have any right to own a business.

You seem to know what your revenue is and what your profit is, and what the difference is. A lot of these people seem really confused, so I have to assume they work at a walmart but like McCain enough to latch onto this "talking point" because it makes them feel better about McCain and gives them a reason to hate Obama.

100 to 200 employees isn't "very big" but it certainly is an established and sizable business, and falls under totally different tax rules, seeing as those companies already exceed a million dollars in payroll alone. (most 100 to 200 employee companies have 5 to 10 million dollar payrolls.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2008 03:16AM by Bob.

Geeze....have you guys never done your own taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That would be income after all deductions are taken. Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people. He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39% instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush Limbaugh and think for yourselves.

Mike Coats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geeze....have you guys never done your own
> taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross
> income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That
> would be income after all deductions are taken.
> Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people.
> He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate
> for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If
> your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39%
> instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is
> an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that
> hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush
> Limbaugh and think for yourselves.


Yeah but that tax hike will cause small business's to lay off people andcut their expenditures. It must be true, I heard it on Hammity.

It is important that you go out and vote for McCain. The new polling suggests in many states, OH, NH, PA, IN, etc it is too close to call! I heard that on Hammity too.

Mike Coats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geeze....have you guys never done your own
> taxes??? Obama is NOT talking about gross
> income...he is talking about TAXABLE INCOME. That
> would be income after all deductions are taken.
> Man...no wonder it is so easy to hoodwink people.
> He is proposing to increase the marginal tax rate
> for TAXABLE INCOME over 250K from 35% to 39%. If
> your taxable income is 300K then you would pay 39%
> instead of 35% on the amount OVER 250K. That is
> an additional $2,000. Hell guys...it isn't that
> hard to understand. Turn off Fox news and Rush
> Limbaugh and think for yourselves.


Well, in the interest of being completely truthful, it isn't taxing the amount over 250k, if you have $300,000 in taxable net income, your tax bracket will be 39% for ALL of your net income.

It's no different than if you earned $77,099 last year, and you earned $77,100 or more this year, your tax rate went from 25% to 28%.

You don't pay 28% on the amount above 77,100, you pay 28% on your entire taxable income.

EDIT --

I just went and looked up the tax code, and you were actually mostly correct, at least as far as part of the income is taxed at a lower rate.

in the 31,850 to 77,100 bracket, you pay 13% tax on the first 31,850, then 25% on anything above that. In the 77,100 to 160,850, you pay 20% on the first 77,100, and 28% on anything above 77,100.

However, the person earning $250,000 is currently paying 23% for the first 178,350, and 35% on anyting above 178,350. (the bracket, currently, is 178,350 to 349,700)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2008 11:35PM by Bob.

An interesting exercise is to calculate your effective (as opposed to marginal) tax rate for the last five years. I challenged a co-worker to do this after growing tired of him inaccurately state how much the tax burden really is. To calculate yours: Add up your total income--salary (including 401k contributions, flex plan deductions, tax exempt health care payments, etc.), investment earnings, alimony, gifts, insurance payments, state tax refunds, refundable tax credits (such as EITC) etc. Divide this into your total tax payments. Run a few calculations to get the whole picture--first with just federal income tax (no Social Security or Medicare tax included), then add those back in, then add tax and local taxes. You'll probably be surprised at the results. Here are my numbers for total tax burden (including state taxes and real estate taxes). I had some unusual circumstances in 2006 and 2007 that led to lower overall taxes but the rate would have been about 18% without that. I have household income in the neighborhood of 200k. Anybody else want to take the challenge?

2003 18%
2004 16%
2005 22%
2006 12.6%
2007 12.9%

I just thought you all might want to know which party really is responsible for the problems we are in right now. Check out this article from the New York Times (a very liberal, possibly considered democratic paper) that was published 6 months before Clinton got out of office. Now, given, very few Republicans stood up and tried to stop this either, but McCain did! Just for your info, I am currently unaffiliated because I absolutely hate what these people in Washington are doing to our country!
And might I add, taxes are one of the main reasons that led our forefathers to fight for our independence. Taxes were without representation and too high. Raising taxes has never, and I mean never, been a good solution to anything. Money in the pockets of the private sector is always watched over better and spent more wisely. So, ask yourself these questions? Why did our forefathers think it was worth dying for to get rid of too high of taxes without representation? Has anything in the tax department, principle wise, changed in the last couple hundred years? Do you trust yourself with your hard earned money more than you trust the government, be they democrats, republicans, libertarians, greens, socialists, or whatever? In all simpleness and common sense, why would you vote for someone whose plan will raise taxes at all, and who's plan is so confusing it has taken this entire forum of arguing points to even attempt to try and explain it. Frankly, I don't want someone as my President whose tax plan cannot be clearly explained or understood. God bless America (because nobody in Washington has this in the forefront of their plans)!
Oh, and here is the article.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Sorry, two things.
The article was published 4 months before Clinton got out of office.
And if the link doesn't get you directly to the article, here is the link
without the http:// so it won't automatically change it to a shorter link and the name of the article is Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending. The author is Steven A. Holmes and it was published on September 30, 1999 in the New York Times (just in case you need to search for it).
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

his plan isn't just for profits its for anyone making over 250k thats gross, will pay more taxes. and even if it was just for profits, anyone with a subchapter S corportation or LLC would pay the high corporate taxes. Raising taxes in any form is bad, raising them durring a time of economic crisis is retarded. As for raising the taxes why? We need to reexamine the role of goverment, is it the role of goverment to redistribute wealth? to provide a welfare safetly net. no its not in the Constitution because that isn't the role of goverment. And last thing about that, Biden was on tv the other day lowering the bar saying it was anyone making less than 150k. As far as rich republicans being outta touch. Obama paid almost 2 million for his home how many of you can relate to him? Yes people will raise prices and and lay off people to make up for that tax increase, by taxing the rich *how many of you work for poor people* you only hurt everyone else. Corporate taxes will go up under his plan the highest bracket will be up around or over 50 percent go read his plan.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> his plan isn't just for profits its for anyone
> making over 250k thats gross, will pay more taxes.
> and even if it was just for profits, anyone with a
> subchapter S corportation or LLC would pay the
> high corporate taxes.

You are an idiot. I have an LLC and an S-Corp. They are pass-throughs. I get a K-1 for the LLC. I pay taxes on personal income, not on the gross revenue of the business. I have a tax attorney prepare my taxes. This is how businesses do it. You know nothing about this, so stop embarrassing yourself.

Don't waste your time--this guy is beyond hope.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>
> You are an idiot. I have an LLC and an S-Corp.
> They are pass-throughs. I get a K-1 for the LLC. I
> pay taxes on personal income, not on the gross
> revenue of the business. I have a tax attorney
> prepare my taxes. This is how businesses do it.
> You know nothing about this, so stop embarrassing
> yourself.

personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask your tax professional how it works.

Not a personal attack--just a statement of fact. You didn't bother reading any of the thread--if you had you wouldn't have posted what you did. There is just too much wrong with what you seem to believe to bother with correcting--you don't want to know the facts.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.

if you are being honest then you have to admit a passthough means that you file your business taxes on your own tax forms. that being the case if your business doesn't gross over 250k you aren't doing business

its not what i believe i read his policys so i had to put some corrections on there, if you believe thats whats best vote for him. don't attack me for brining to light obama's tax plans

Not a personal attack--just a statement of fact. You didn't bother reading any of the thread--if you had you wouldn't have posted what you did. There is just too much wrong with what you seem to believe to bother with correcting--you don't want to know the facts.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.

Read the thread.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its not what i believe i read his policys so i had
> to put some corrections on there, if you believe
> thats whats best vote for him. don't attack me for
> brining to light obama's tax plans

how about the issues, is raising taxes good? is it a good idea in an economic downturn? is it the role of goverment to take your money and mine to give it to someone else?

All good questions that I'm happy to address if you want to stick to facts. First, your taxes have already been raised--you just haven't been given the bill yet. Taxes are inseparable from spending, and the Bush administration has spent plenty. Between the new entitlement programs and the war of choice with Iraq we have spent far more in the last eight years than we collected. That is raising your taxes, period. I am a fiscal conservative, which means I believe in paying my bills, investing in my future, and saving for a rainy day. Republicans are not fiscally conservative. They only believe in lowering payments for today's tax payers and shifting the burden to future tax payers. Raising taxes is probably not a great idea in a recession and it probably won't happen. However, if you are going to raise taxes, it makes sense to do it on the segment of the population who has excess disposal income. Contrary to the ignorant speculation I've read, the "rich" won't stop working or lay people off if they have to pay more in taxes. They already have more than they need. As far as the "income redistribution" argument goes, what do you think running massive deficits is? You are shifting your tax burden to future generations--that's income redistribution if I've ever seen it.

i think the budget should be balanced. yes the war has been costly about 1% of the GDP *figures from july 08* and so has hurricans katriana, Gaustav, Ike, rita and other natural disasters. as far as the bush administration goes it has had its downsides but congress has been controled by the demacrats the last 2 years i haven't seen anything from them about balancing the budget. and if you think that that will change Obama's plans will raise the deficit even more than McCain's plan. Not that McCain is my first choice for a Republican canadate but he is better than Obama. Also looking back at history we can clearly see that raising taxes will eventually cut productivity. And its mistaken to think that the cost of the taxes won't be passed onto the consumer. A good example of this is your phone bill. If you read all the taxes charged the FCC and other taxes they appear on your phone bill because the phone companies won't pay then you can raise them as much as you want they will just pass them onto the consumer via the phone bill. check out your phone bill it will agrivate you.

there are other ways like controlling spending to pay down the deficit

During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.

We have 10 TRILLION dollars in debt right now--who should pay that?

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there are other ways like controlling spending to
> pay down the deficit


Wrong.

No matter who takes office in January, at some point taxes are going to have to be raised.

Controlling spending is not going to get rid of 10 trillion in debt and a trillion in yearly deficits. Not to mention the fact that sometime between 2025 and 2040, Social Security and Medicare and other entitlements will grow to consume 100% of government revenue.

Vote for whoever you want, but taxes will go up no matter who wins.

You should read Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson: http://books.google.com/books?id=8S2MHQAACAAJ&dq=Running+on+Empty

in 2002 alone we spent 4 percent of the gdp on welfare alone. thats over 4 times as much as the iraq war. the national debt will be paid by tax payers. earlier in the primarys there was a question about raising taxes on capital gains becasue when capital gains taxes were lowered the goverment took in more money due to increased investing. fiscal responsiblity is the answer not just raising taxes and i might be ok with paying more taxes if it actually went to the deficit but not for it to be spent on earmarks and even more socail programs or other unwise expenditures.

the problem in politics from both sides is everyone wants to put a bandaid on the problem instead of fixing the root cause. medicare is out of control because the money is being spent on things it wasn't designed for. and there are less and less people paying into the system. fix the problem not bandaid it by a short term solution which is what tax increases are.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> personal attacks don't help I have an LLC. Ask
> your tax professional how it works.


Yeah. It's called a K-1. If your tax attorney isn't preparing one for you, you are screwing yourself.

Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you are being honest then you have to admit a
> passthough means that you file your business taxes
> on your own tax forms. that being the case if your
> business doesn't gross over 250k you aren't doing
> business


My business grosses well over $250K. But I don't pay taxes on that. I write off business expenses, such as equipment, utilities, rent, etc. For a small business, most of the stuff isn't big enough to be impacted by depreciation. I have also used a SEP IRA and Keogh 401Ks to bring down my income while saving for retirement. It's not that complicated if you hire a tax professional.

Yes, I file tax forms for the LLC and S-Corp, but there are no profits. The profits are my personal income after business expenses.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how about the issues, is raising taxes good?

It can be. Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s and we had the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. With our substantial national debt, foreign countries are lending to us at relatively low interest rates. If we continue our fiscal irresponsiblity, they will stop or force us to raise rates through the bond market, which would be bad.

> is it
> a good idea in an economic downturn?

I don't know. Is it good during an economic expansion? Republicans can always figure out reasons not to increase taxes. Seriously, though, our biggest problem is that consumer confidence is at its lowest level ever. If you give the Middle Class a tax cut, that could help alleviate that problem.

> is it the
> role of goverment to take your money and mine to
> give it to someone else?

Uh, actually it is. It has always been that. Whenever you have taxes, that is what happens. The Founding Fathers didn't Revolt against England because they had to pay taxes. They revolted because they had to pay taxes without representation. You have representation, so shut up and pay your taxes.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i think the budget should be balanced. yes the war
> has been costly about 1% of the GDP *figures from
> july 08* and so has hurricans katriana, Gaustav,
> Ike, rita and other natural disasters. as far as
> the bush administration goes it has had its
> downsides but congress has been controled by the
> demacrats the last 2 years i haven't seen anything
> from them about balancing the budget. and if you
> think that that will change Obama's plans will
> raise the deficit even more than McCain's plan.
> Not that McCain is my first choice for a
> Republican canadate but he is better than Obama.
> Also looking back at history we can clearly see
> that raising taxes will eventually cut
> productivity. And its mistaken to think that the
> cost of the taxes won't be passed onto the
> consumer. A good example of this is your phone
> bill. If you read all the taxes charged the FCC
> and other taxes they appear on your phone bill
> because the phone companies won't pay then you can
> raise them as much as you want they will just pass
> them onto the consumer via the phone bill. check
> out your phone bill it will agrivate you.


I don't know where you get your figures. Our national debt, which is made up primarily of military spending, entitlement programs and servicing (interest payments) the national debt is at its highest level as compared to GDP since WWII.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in 2002 alone we spent 4 percent of the gdp on
> welfare alone. thats over 4 times as much as the
> iraq war. the national debt will be paid by tax
> payers. earlier in the primarys there was a
> question about raising taxes on capital gains
> becasue when capital gains taxes were lowered the
> goverment took in more money due to increased
> investing. fiscal responsiblity is the answer not
> just raising taxes and i might be ok with paying
> more taxes if it actually went to the deficit but
> not for it to be spent on earmarks and even more
> socail programs or other unwise expenditures.


the "4 percent on welfare" includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the new Republican creation "Prescription Drug Program".

The government didn't take in more money on capital gains because the tax was lowered, it took in more money because of the new instruments like Collaterized Debt Obligations and other creative investment instruments. These new instruments created a huge credit bubble, and just like in the dot com and housing bubbles, lots of capital gains were made, before the pyramid became too tall to keep building up, and the whole thing collapsed.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the problem in politics from both sides is
> everyone wants to put a bandaid on the problem
> instead of fixing the root cause. medicare is out
> of control because the money is being spent on
> things it wasn't designed for. and there are less
> and less people paying into the system. fix the
> problem not bandaid it by a short term solution
> which is what tax increases are.

Nobody "pays into the system" as far as medicare is concerned.

You're thinking of Social Security.

Tax increases are not a short term fix.

What's funny is that you don't make the logical connection when saying things like "when capital gains taxes were lowered, the government took in more money due to increased investing" in order to see that those are short term fixes, and they only worked because of a bubble, in the first place.

Tax increases are a fiscal reality, and they are absolutely not short term fixes. They are intended to secure LONG TERM financial viability of government, and indirectly, the market and the economy.

Richard Cox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just thought you all might want to know which
> party really is responsible for the problems we
> are in right now. Check out this article from the
> New York Times (a very liberal, possibly
> considered democratic paper) that was published 6
> months before Clinton got out of office. Now,
> given, very few Republicans stood up and tried to
> stop this either, but McCain did! Just for your
> info, I am currently unaffiliated because I
> absolutely hate what these people in Washington
> are doing to our country!
> And might I add, taxes are one of the main reasons
> that led our forefathers to fight for our
> independence. Taxes were without representation
> and too high. Raising taxes has never, and I mean
> never, been a good solution to anything. Money in
> the pockets of the private sector is always
> watched over better and spent more wisely. So, ask
> yourself these questions? Why did our forefathers
> think it was worth dying for to get rid of too
> high of taxes without representation? Has anything
> in the tax department, principle wise, changed in
> the last couple hundred years? Do you trust
> yourself with your hard earned money more than you
> trust the government, be they democrats,
> republicans, libertarians, greens, socialists, or
> whatever? In all simpleness and common sense, why
> would you vote for someone whose plan will raise
> taxes at all, and who's plan is so confusing it
> has taken this entire forum of arguing points to
> even attempt to try and explain it. Frankly, I
> don't want someone as my President whose tax plan
> cannot be clearly explained or understood. God
> bless America (because nobody in Washington has
> this in the forefront of their plans)!
> Oh, and here is the article.
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0
> DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner
> =permalink&exprod=permalink


Our forefathers didn't die to get rid of "too high" taxes, they fought to end taxes without representation, to end taxes that paid for the crown's wars against france and to support the colonial ambitions that didn't affect the American colonists.

Don't forget the whiskey rebellion.

George Washington sent troops into western PA and actually used those troops to kill the grain farmers who were protesting the unfair taxes on their whiskey, which was the only form of their grain crops that was economically viable to ship over the mountains, in order to make money. If they could have shipped their grains over the mountains to make money, they would have, but it was too expensive, so they chose to refine those grains into alcohol, but then the new federal government imposed a tax on alcohol, and that made it cost prohibitive to ship the grain as raw grain or as alcohol, and they were losing money.

There's a huge difference between being taxed on something when you have no say and being taxed on something because you have a responsibility to your country.

But trying to invoke the founding fathers is a dead end. They did their share of bad tax policies, and even used the military to enforce their tax policies.

alot of misinformation thrown at me lets see
k-1 tax, yes i am familiar with it 1-100 shareholders ect. if the new plans go into affect you may lose you tax breaks.

as far as clinton he did a good job with the economy but acording to an economic study the best economic time was under President Regan, I'll post this link for your enjoyment http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw99_02_22.pdf
another shocker is the lowest unemployment in US history was under George Bush.
up until democrats messed up the housing market but i'm sure i'll get alot of comments on that just you tube some things before you post back please.

as for where i get my numbers from they are freely availble on goverment websites and watchdog groups. and the 4percent welfare programs didn't include medicare that was around 3 percent if i recall correctly.

as for the capital gains comment there may be some merit in that arguement but capital gains has gone down more than once and each time it produced more revenue thats clearly a pattern.

paying into medicare, simple people live longer after retirement thats a good thing but it shifts the tax burdern to younger people thats paying into it if you ask me.

as far as the founding fathers goes, we didn't have an income tax system on wages until 1913. they didn't consider labor taxable it was only land and tangable commodities they would tax. and of course they had a poll tax which i think we should bring back. The whiskey rebellion was more than just taxes but less than a rebellion he called out troops because they were rioting just as we would get out the riot gear today. it was more of a states rights concern they didn't like the new federal goverment implementing taxes.

i think i get the point of this thread i should run for office then you will be ok with giving me your money in ever increasing amounts. we are already among the higest taxed country in the world its time to start governing within a budget. i'll check this later to see what other misinformation you can come up with.

From the Curious Capitalist:

One of the most cherished beliefs of supply-side zealots is that cuts in capital gains tax rates always increase revenue. To be sure, there are often dramatic upward revenue swings right after the cap gains rate is cut. But that is in part because people can choose when to enter into the transactions that result in capital gains--and they'd be idiots not to hold off a few months if they know the tax rate is about to drop.

A better test is whether receipts are higher over the course of an entire business cycle. Last week, as part of its latest 10-year budget projections (pdf!), the Congressional Budget Office published its estimate of capital gains receipts in fiscal 2007. I'm willing to bet that, recession or no, FY 2007 will prove to be a peak in capital gains receipts that won't be matched for several years. Which means we can compare it with the peak of the last cycle, in 2000.

So no, the reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% in 2003 did not result in an increase in revenue over the course of the business cycle. In 2000 receipts totaled $119 billion, which equals $143 million in 2007 dollars. In 2007, they totaled $122 billion. That's a 15% decline.

Now I guess you could argue that 2000 was the peak of a once-in-a-lifetime stock market boom, making it an unfair comparison. But that would amount to admitting that forces other than the capital gains tax rate determine the course of the stock market. Perish the thought!


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/28/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr/

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html


Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/the_us_tax_burd.html


The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries, by Sonya Hoo and Eric Toder, Tax policy Center: The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000. Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent. Within the OECD, Mexico raised the least tax revenues at 19 percent and Sweden the most at 50.6 percent. (The recovery of corporate profits and the stock market since 2003 subsequently boosted U.S. tax revenues to 26.8 percent of GDP in the first three quarters of calendar year 2005.)

greg-

Let's clarify something about the housing crisis. The loosening of home ownership rules wasn't the main culprit. The main culprit was the lack of regulatory oversight that led to the creation of risky mortgage securities that were deemed "investment grade" by Moody's and S&P and that were backed up by Credit Default Swaps that had no money behind them. The biggest culprits in this were the institutions that put out the Credit Default Swaps and, frankly, Moody's and S&P for rating risky securities as investment grade, opening the doors for Pension Funds, Fannie Mae and foreign investors to stock up on them, which created even more demand. If anyone should go to jail, it should be the people at Moody's and S&P who readily admitted in front of Congress they were involved in fraud.

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message apparently came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.


"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration.

But the Republican National Committee quickly blasted out an e-mail saying, "At this rate, it won't take long until Obama is again raising taxes on Americans making as little as $42,000 a year."

"When Barack Obama comes to your door this Halloween, there will be no treats -- just taxes," the e-mail said.

Joe Biden caused headaches for the campaign Monday when he told a Scranton, Pa., TV station that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year."

John McCain said the tax threshold was "creeping down," while the Obama campaign accused him of lying about Obama's tax policies.

greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alot of misinformation thrown at me lets see

And you throw misinformation as well...


> we are already among the higest taxed country in the
> world its time to start governing within a budget.
> i'll check this later to see what other
> misinformation you can come up with.

We are not among the highest taxed country in the world. Not in corporate taxes, and especially not in personal income tax.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-27-08tax.htm

The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries.[1] Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.

Nevertheless, some have argued that U.S. corporate tax rates unduly burden U.S. companies by pointing to the country’s top statutory tax rate, which is 35 percent. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial calling for corporate tax cuts noted that this is the second highest top statutory tax rate among developed countries.[2] While true, this gives the false impression that the corporate tax burden is greater here than in other developed countries. Because the U.S. tax code offers so many deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — or what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate — is not high, compared to other developed countries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2008 11:00PM by Bob.

thank you Bob...a great find

Once again I'd like to thank all of the folks who have taken this question seriously. I posed this question out of a genuine concern that honest Mom and Pop operations were potentially being lumped in as "fat cats" by the Obama tax plan that targets $250K as a cutoff point. I do wish you would all treat one another in a more civil fashion, but I understand the forum and thank you all for your generally thoughtful feedback. Most of all thank you all for caring about America.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again I'd like to thank all of the folks who
> have taken this question seriously. I posed this
> question out of a genuine concern that honest Mom
> and Pop operations were potentially being lumped
> in as "fat cats" by the Obama tax plan that
> targets $250K as a cutoff point. I do wish you
> would all treat one another in a more civil
> fashion, but I understand the forum and thank you
> all for your generally thoughtful feedback. Most
> of all thank you all for caring about America.

So, do you think the overall consensus is that they are being lumped together with the fat cats, or not?

Greg....where DO you get your facts??? In 2007 the US GDP was over 13 trillion dollars. 4% of that is 560 BILLION dollars. I am not a fan of welfare either..but making up facts to fit your argument is not a good arguing method....although one practiced often by a lot of people. Take a look at this link...it is the official federal budget site. Yea....we give too much to welfare....but nowhere NEAR 4% of GDP. Christ....are you people that gullible and incapable of a little simple research????

BTW...I am one of 3 partners who own a sub chapter S corporation. We pay taxes at our individual marginal rates. We do not pay separate corporate taxes like a C corp does. Greg seems a bit like Joe the Plumber...he WANTS to own a business....but has no clue how one works except from what Hannity and Limbaugh put into is head.
Attachments:

Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you were watching the debates Obama wants to increase spending, not good.

Katie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> were watching the debates Obama wants to increase
> spending, not good.


As did McCain. with the economy down the tubes..it's all a matter of priorities. As in...Do we really need to install Star Wars weapons in Western Europe..further threatening Russsia (just one example).

Katie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> were watching the debates Obama wants to increase
> spending, not good.


Why is it all Republicans have no problem throwing $10 billion a month at Iraq but refuse to pay to replace bridges in the U.S. that are falling down?

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Katie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I agree cut government spending but if you
> > were watching the debates Obama wants to
> increase
> > spending, not good.
>
>
> Why is it all Republicans have no problem throwing
> $10 billion a month at Iraq but refuse to pay to
> replace bridges in the U.S. that are falling down?

One kills brown people. The other employs brown people.

Republican: It doesnt matter what your income is your taxes will increase by double. Obama keeps talking about change.... the only change there will be is the little left in your pocket.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Obama says the average small business makes
> less than $250,000 per year. How could that be?
> That just doesn't sound right.

Squash Bannana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican: It doesnt matter what your income is
> your taxes will increase by double. Obama keeps
> talking about change.... the only change there
> will be is the little left in your pocket.
> --------------------------------------------------


Because we all know that a 3.5% increase for the top 5 percent of earners is the exact same thing as "increase by double."

Maybe you should cut back on the hyperbole. You might actually sound credible.

First lets get it right.VOTE INDEPENDENT Democrates and Replublicans for along time just do seam to get it.30 year ago maybe? I try to vote for someone who can do a good job.Problem is i have not seen one yet.Maybe they were over educated.Bussinesses in the 50s 60s a little 70s. were run by dropouts that learned the bussiness work the bussiness and ended up running the bussiness .Kept them in the US .Products made in the US and MADE THIS COUNTRY WHAT IT WAS. Yes we need a change. SOrry

Going a little off topic:

With the exception of a couple states and DC, it was my understanding that LLCs can exist with one member.

I thought K-1 was a W-2 equivalent for LLC member(s) and had to be declared as self-employment income, subject to all taxes.

Is this income filed as part of Schedule C and combined with personal income, or is it sheltered (reported on a separate tax filing)?

If a LLC Partnership is doing well and combined with personal income, couldn't this take a member over the top?

====

I'm a sole proprietor and thought about going LLC to add a layer of protection for my personal assets in the event of a law suit.


WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yeah. It's called a K-1. If your tax attorney
> isn't preparing one for you, you are screwing
> yourself.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Going a little off topic:
>
> With the exception of a couple states and DC, it
> was my understanding that LLCs can exist with one
> member.
>
> I thought K-1 was a W-2 equivalent for LLC
> member(s) and had to be declared as
> self-employment income, subject to all taxes.
>
> Is this income filed as part of Schedule C and
> combined with personal income, or is it sheltered
> (reported on a separate tax filing)?
>
> If a LLC Partnership is doing well and combined
> with personal income, couldn't this take a member
> over the top?
>
> ====
>
> I'm a sole proprietor and thought about going LLC
> to add a layer of protection for my personal
> assets in the event of a law suit.
>
>

I don't know if one person can do an LLC in Virginia. I have someone else on my LLC.

As for the K-1, it isn't exactly like a W-2 in the fact that it is less complicated to prepare. It is basically a record that you have received income from a pass-through entity, such as a corporation, partnership or trust. It might be more comparable to a 1099 in that no taxes are recorded as taken out in the K-1.

Basically the K-1 serves as documentation that you have received income from the LLC. You still take the taxes out of your s-corp and personal tax filing, where appropriate. You still have to file a tax return for the LLC. A schedule C is involved.

Suffice it to say, it's a lot of added paperwork, but you don't typically pay taxes on the LLC because if you do it correctly the LLC will show no net income and the tax burden is paid through your s-corp and personal taxes.

OK, Now I understand. If you have a few members, you spread it around so no one takes the full hit.

It doesn't seem worth the effort me to upgrade to a LLC; I don't think I have to worry about hitting the $250,000 income cap any time soon.

ADDED: I just went back and checked - the minimum number of members for a Virginia LLC is one. I thought so, but couldn't remember because it's been a while since I looked into this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2009 03:32PM by RestonLass.

Libertarian1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Obama says the average small business makes
> less than $250,000 per year. How could that be?
> That just doesn't sound right.


okay cool. bobulas banana stand generates about 3 billion a year. you should probably check it out

Try again.
There is a massive unlikelihood you are showing a personal income of $250,000 if your business and taxes are managed properly at a 700,000 gross.

If you are netting over 1/3 of your gross , you are in sore need of a good tax accountant. Your operating costs are only a portion of your deductions. There is depreciation, amortization, depletion, deferred loss, and writeoffs galore. Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas, insurance, and health insurance.

As a tax accountant I know this. As a small business, if you aren't incorporated you are a fool not to take advantage of the deductions available
and if you are running a $700,000 s yr business through a personal proprietorship(schedeule C) you need to go corporate and get that income out of your personal return.

If you are a corporation you are likely entitled to far more deductions than you take. Very very, very few businesses do a net 37% on a tax return unless they have a worthless tax accountant. The net is more likely to be a loss.

In any case the taxable (personal)income, if you are paying yourself the entire net as income, which you say you arent, is not $250,000 after all personal deductions depreciations and market losses AND your taxes are not going up.

If you are not paying yourself all the net, you are sheltering the balance of net by reinvesting capital, and available tax shelters and inventory and loans.

You musty be the squeakiest clean businessman if your claim is true and you aren't typical in any way shape or form of small businessmen, certainly not wealthy ones.

In any case, you dont need to cut your staff by 14%(1).

Max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas,
> insurance, and health insurance.

Is it true with the new health bill the employees will have to pay tax on the full cost of the health insurance benefit.

No, that isn't true.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-20/story/health-care-benefits-not-taxable-are-reportable

Btw, here is a story from today's Times about how the Health Care bill helps small businesses:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/health-care-relief-for-small-businesses/?scp=3&sq=health%20insurance&st=cse


So Max Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Max Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Plus your company is paying for your auto, gas,
> > insurance, and health insurance.
>
> Is it true with the new health bill the employees
> will have to pay tax on the full cost of the
> health insurance benefit.

Voter____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, that isn't true.
>
> http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-20/stor
> y/health-care-benefits-not-taxable-are-reportable

Thanks. Not sure of what qualifies as Cadillac policies. My concern is small business pays much more for insurance per person than government or unions and I didn't want our employees to be penalized.

Appreicate the references. I have been searching for a clear understanding.

Here is another story from yesterday's Times that shows the impact of proposed tax increases on small businesses:

Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate that only 3 percent of small businesses would be subject to the higher tax, and many studies of previous tax increases suggest that it would have minimal impact on hiring.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.

Even among the 750,000 businesses that would be subjected to the higher rates in 2011, many are sole proprietors — a classification so amorphous it can include everyone from corporate executives who earn income on rental property to entertainers, hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Because 80 percent of America’s 32 million businesses are sole proprietorships, 90 percent of the tax cut would be derived from businesses without employees.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/smallbusiness/18smallbiz.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business

You shouldn't need to watch any videos or read any article to know that anytime anyone discusses how much you will pay in taxes they are ALWAYS referring to NET income or profit not GROSS income or profit. You are never taxed on the money you spent in order to make the profit if that was the case everyone should be pissed that they are getting taxed twice because you already pay taxes for all your business expenses at the time you incur them!!!!!!!!! and unless you have a really horrible accountant you should be able to keep your net below 250k so maybe you should pay a little extra for a better accountant that can tell you what you can write off or maybe instead of wasting time writing on here over and over you can do some research online on how to lower your taxable income with deductions!

ACCOUNTING 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You shouldn't need to watch any videos or read any
> article to know that anytime anyone discusses how
> much you will pay in taxes they are ALWAYS
> referring to NET income or profit not GROSS income
> or profit. You are never taxed on the money you
> spent in order to make the profit if that was the
> case everyone should be pissed that they are
> getting taxed twice because you already pay taxes
> for all your business expenses at the time you
> incur them!!!!!!!!! and unless you have a really
> horrible accountant you should be able to keep
> your net below 250k so maybe you should pay a
> little extra for a better accountant that can tell
> you what you can write off or maybe instead of
> wasting time writing on here over and over you can
> do some research online on how to lower your
> taxable income with deductions!


If you are making more than $250K, there are only so many deductions you can take that are actually beneficial for you. Anything you try to take out of the business for income becomes subject to AMT after a certain level. This means certain exemptions stop being beneficial once you exceed AMT. Also, if you have employees, ERISA starts to tie your hands on retirement contributions because you have to increase the portion you provide to employees. Small businesses are at a huge disadvantage compared to large corporations that can use stock options for compensation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ACCOUNTING 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You shouldn't need to watch any videos or read
> any
> > article to know that anytime anyone discusses
> how
> > much you will pay in taxes they are ALWAYS
> > referring to NET income or profit not GROSS
> income
> > or profit. You are never taxed on the money you
> > spent in order to make the profit if that was
> the
> > case everyone should be pissed that they are
> > getting taxed twice because you already pay
> taxes
> > for all your business expenses at the time you
> > incur them!!!!!!!!! and unless you have a
> really
> > horrible accountant you should be able to keep
> > your net below 250k so maybe you should pay a
> > little extra for a better accountant that can
> tell
> > you what you can write off or maybe instead of
> > wasting time writing on here over and over you
> can
> > do some research online on how to lower your
> > taxable income with deductions!
>
>
> If you are making more than $250K, there are only
> so many deductions you can take that are actually
> beneficial for you. Anything you try to take out
> of the business for income becomes subject to AMT
> after a certain level. This means certain
> exemptions stop being beneficial once you exceed
> AMT. Also, if you have employees, ERISA starts to
> tie your hands on retirement contributions because
> you have to increase the portion you provide to
> employees. Small businesses are at a huge
> disadvantage compared to large corporations that
> can use stock options for compensation.

Dead on with the facts here.

The problem with increasing taxes on income over 250K is it takes a substantial amount of money out of the private sector where it is more wisely spent and invested and transfers it to the federal treasury where it seems to vaporize.

The 250K margin was set specifically to appeal to people that don't make 250K per year.Human nature. Simple Joe thinks "Well I sure as hell don't 250K what do I care"? Our economy gets more bang for the buck if the dollar is left in the private sector to be spent or invested forgoing tax rate hikes.

Every year in CA for example the state is losing millions of dollars of revenue on yachts that are delivered to U.S. owners in Mexico instead of San Diego or wherever just to avoid all the fees and taxes. If CA would lower there tax rates just a little they would bring in substantially more revenue to the state.

I have a friend who sold his families horse ranch in southwestern KS for millions of dollars and bought a yacht to pursue his dreams of sailing. He and his family members rotated living in Mexico for like 90 days or something to comply with CA's tax laws just in case they were audited and of course they were. Even including his expenses for having to stay in Mexico he still saved in excess of $80,000.00.

You bet there will be accountants in high gear beating down numbers everywhere to hide revenues. This would show up in suppressed economic data and lower federal receipts than otherwise would have been realized. It (tax rate increase on 250K+) most likely is a moot issue however as I doubt it would pass congress at this point or in the foreseeable future. Good Day WTL

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ACCOUNTING 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You shouldn't need to watch any videos or read
> any
> > article to know that anytime anyone discusses
> how
> > much you will pay in taxes they are ALWAYS
> > referring to NET income or profit not GROSS
> income
> > or profit. You are never taxed on the money you
> > spent in order to make the profit if that was
> the
> > case everyone should be pissed that they are
> > getting taxed twice because you already pay
> taxes
> > for all your business expenses at the time you
> > incur them!!!!!!!!! and unless you have a
> really
> > horrible accountant you should be able to keep
> > your net below 250k so maybe you should pay a
> > little extra for a better accountant that can
> tell
> > you what you can write off or maybe instead of
> > wasting time writing on here over and over you
> can
> > do some research online on how to lower your
> > taxable income with deductions!
>
>
> If you are making more than $250K, there are only
> so many deductions you can take that are actually
> beneficial for you. Anything you try to take out
> of the business for income becomes subject to AMT
> after a certain level. This means certain
> exemptions stop being beneficial once you exceed
> AMT. Also, if you have employees, ERISA starts to
> tie your hands on retirement contributions because
> you have to increase the portion you provide to
> employees. Small businesses are at a huge
> disadvantage compared to large corporations that
> can use stock options for compensation.

You're dead on with the facts here.

The problem with increasing taxes on income over 250K is it takes a substantial amount of money out of the private sector where it is more wisely spent and invested and transfers it to the federal treasury where it seems to vaporize.

The 250K margin was set specifically to appeal to people that don't make 250K per year.Human nature. Simple Joe thinks "Well I sure as hell don't make 250K what do I care"? Our economy gets more bang for the buck if the dollar is left in the private sector to be spent or invested forgoing tax rate hikes.

Every year in CA for example the state is losing millions of dollars of revenue on yachts that are delivered to U.S. owners in Mexico instead of San Diego or wherever just to avoid all the fees and taxes. If CA would lower there tax rates just a little they would bring in substantially more revenue to the state.

I have a friend who sold his families horse ranch in southwestern KS for millions of dollars and bought a yacht to pursue his dreams of sailing. He and his family members rotated living in Mexico for like 90 days or something to comply with CA's tax laws just in case they were audited and of course they were. Even including his expenses for having to stay in Mexico he still saved in excess of $80,000.00.

You bet there will be accountants in high gear beating down numbers everywhere to hide revenues. This would show up in suppressed economic data and lower federal receipts than otherwise would have been realized. It (tax rate increase on 250K+) most likely is a moot issue however as I doubt it would pass congress at this point or in the foreseeable future. Good Day WTL

.
Attachments:

Voter______ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


Yep

The bottom line: It's not exactly Easy Street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red -- after taxes, saving for retirement and their children's education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living -- in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. The worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif., followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md., Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill., and Pinecrest, Fla. In Plano, Texas, the couple's balance sheet would end up positive, but only by $4,963.

http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/down-and-out-on-250000-dollars-a-year-fiscal-times.aspx?gt1=33005

It ain't easy street here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line: It's not exactly Easy Street for
> our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they
> live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with
> an additional $3,000 in investment income, they
> end up in the red -- after taxes, saving for
> retirement and their children's education, and a
> middle-of-the-road cost of living -- in seven out
> of the eight communities in the analysis. The
> worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif.,
> followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md.,
> Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill., and Pinecrest,
> Fla. In Plano, Texas, the couple's balance sheet
> would end up positive, but only by $4,963.
>
> http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/down-and-out-on-
> 250000-dollars-a-year-fiscal-times.aspx?gt1=33005




HA! If you are in the red and making around $250k a year, it is your own damn fault. Get a modest home, buy an economy car, do something to make your cost of living easier.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> HA! If you are in the red and making around $250k
> a year, it is your own damn fault. Get a modest
> home, buy an economy car, do something to make
> your cost of living easier.


I don't know about going broke on $250K a year, but it is a "perfect storm" for taxes versus income. I've been way above and way below $250K in my life, but it seems that amount is the most headache in terms of deductions lost, obligations, etc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm