DID YA HEAR? 80% of the over 250K crowd is "Small Business"!

[oreo]

While many in this country were discouraged with the way our country has been run over the last 8 years. You just voted for a man who stated that many--or should I say "almost none" of the small businesse's in this country make over 250K".

Well, it turns out that while Americans are ready to form a lynch mob & hang the master minds of deceit, the Hedge Funds managers & the corrupt Wall streeters.

This new policy to hike taxes to astronomical levels- on anyone that earns over 250K. It appears that Obama forgot to mention that 80% of the over 250K people are honest hard-working small business owners. You know the "risk takers" of this country that also hire employees, make payroll, benefits, etc. In other words--"Small business owners, whom have nothing to do with Wall Street or Hedge fund managers."

So we are to tax to all time new levels these people--which represent only 5% of this nation, while expecting them to give the rest of us (95% of us) a tax break, of which 40% pay no taxes what-so-ever. Add to this--these same people, the 5% are also expected to pay for all our medical insurance premiums. This all according to Barack Obama's plan. This is what I call FUZZY MATH.

The Obama adminstration has in effect declared war on small business in this country. Still the largest employer in this country.

And to those of you who bought into this garbage & voted for it--you now OWN IT.

 

[Xenophon]

Clinton nearly wiped them out in the 1990s.

BO will finish the job Bubba started with them.

 

[DiveCon]

Clinton nearly wiped them out in the 1990s.

BO will finish the job Bubba started with them.

hes got 2 years

 

[xsited1]

I guess this means Obama favors big corporations over the little guy. Everybody knew that, right?

 

[Xenophon]

Middle class will soon cease to exist.

 

[Modbert]

Link?

Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts only on “people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more,” and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center’s table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, only 481,000 of those returns are in the top two income-tax brackets — which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000 — not 21.6million.

Okay, let’s assume there are now 23 million small businesses in the U.S. today (the latest stats I could find were 21.5 million “schedule C” class businesses in 2005). There’s no way that all 23 million of those are netting more than $250,000. In fact, 94.5% of all “flow-through” entities (self-employed folks, which generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts under $100,000 in 2007

Fiorina was building on a Bush argument from 2004. Bush loved to cite on the stump the plight of the 4.1 million “subchapter S” companies – another catagory of small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes. As my former Bloomberg colleague Ryan Donmoyer — the best tax reporter in town — pointed out, the argument was a bit ridiculous because less than 5% of small businesses who file under sub-chapter S made more than $200,000, Kerry’s threshold in 2004. Putting aside the dubiousness of relying on a stale Bush argument for his tax cuts, even with the sub-chapter S filers added in the total number of small businesses effected by a tax hike on those who net more than $250,000 a year remains a few hundred thousand – nowhere near the 23 million Fiorina claimed.

Epic fail on math on your part Xeno.

Only 481,000 AT THE MOST, not even 80%.

 

[editec]

DID YA HEAR? 80% of the over 250K crowd is "Small Business"!

Yeah? So what is your point?

Define "SMALL business" for us, otherwise the point of your post is meaningless.

I get sick of how easily some of you people are mislead by the word games that are played on you.

Bath Iron works is, according to the definition of the US government a SMALL BUSINESS.

They make our freaking battle cruisers for crimminies sakes.


So when most us say "small business", we think we mean the mom and pop single owner type businesses.

But when the goverment defines "small business", their definitions of small are wildly different that what the average person thinks it means, and their definitions are entirely industry dependent

This confusion when that word is bantered in politics about is NOT an accident.

It is a contrived lie done by semantics

 

[Ravi]

The vast majority of small business owners don't have a personal income of $250,000 so this tax roll back won't hurt them at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Link?

Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts only on “people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more,” and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center’s table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, only 481,000 of those returns are in the top two income-tax brackets — which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000 — not 21.6million.

Okay, let’s assume there are now 23 million small businesses in the U.S. today (the latest stats I could find were 21.5 million “schedule C” class businesses in 2005). There’s no way that all 23 million of those are netting more than $250,000. In fact, 94.5% of all “flow-through” entities (self-employed folks, which generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts under $100,000 in 2007

Fiorina was building on a Bush argument from 2004. Bush loved to cite on the stump the plight of the 4.1 million “subchapter S” companies – another catagory of small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes. As my former Bloomberg colleague Ryan Donmoyer — the best tax reporter in town — pointed out, the argument was a bit ridiculous because less than 5% of small businesses who file under sub-chapter S made more than $200,000, Kerry’s threshold in 2004. Putting aside the dubiousness of relying on a stale Bush argument for his tax cuts, even with the sub-chapter S filers added in the total number of small businesses effected by a tax hike on those who net more than $250,000 a year remains a few hundred thousand – nowhere near the 23 million Fiorina claimed.

Epic fail on math on your part Xeno.

Only 481,000 AT THE MOST, not even 80%.

Actually, I would say you failed because most small businesses in the US are sub chapter S corps.

 

[editec]

Link?

Obama has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts only on “people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more,” and according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center’s table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, only 481,000 of those returns are in the top two income-tax brackets — which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000 — not 21.6million.

Okay, let’s assume there are now 23 million small businesses in the U.S. today (the latest stats I could find were 21.5 million “schedule C” class businesses in 2005). There’s no way that all 23 million of those are netting more than $250,000. In fact, 94.5% of all “flow-through” entities (self-employed folks, which generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts under $100,000 in 2007

Fiorina was building on a Bush argument from 2004. Bush loved to cite on the stump the plight of the 4.1 million “subchapter S” companies – another catagory of small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes. As my former Bloomberg colleague Ryan Donmoyer — the best tax reporter in town — pointed out, the argument was a bit ridiculous because less than 5% of small businesses who file under sub-chapter S made more than $200,000, Kerry’s threshold in 2004. Putting aside the dubiousness of relying on a stale Bush argument for his tax cuts, even with the sub-chapter S filers added in the total number of small businesses effected by a tax hike on those who net more than $250,000 a year remains a few hundred thousand – nowhere near the 23 million Fiorina claimed.

Epic fail on math on your part Xeno.

Only 481,000 AT THE MOST, not even 80%.

Actually, I would say you failed because most small businesses in the US are sub chapter S corps.

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Link?



Epic fail on math on your part Xeno.

Only 481,000 AT THE MOST, not even 80%.

Actually, I would say you failed because most small businesses in the US are sub chapter S corps.

Meaning what, exactly?

– C Corporation Versus S Corporation

Subchapter S is a tax designation as is chapter C

The basic difference is that S corps do not file a corporate tax return and the income from an S corp is reported on the shareholders individual tax return. Shareholders are also allowed to claim business losses on their individual returns.

The designation avoids a double taxation of profits from a small closely held business.

So when one argues that there are only X number of C corps that earned Y dollars in the US, one usually does so by tallying corporate tax returns which do not reflect S corps.

 

[DavidS]

While many in this country were discouraged with the way our country has been run over the last 8 years. You just voted for a man who stated that many--or should I say "almost none" of the small businesse's in this country make over 250K".

Well, it turns out that while Americans are ready to form a lynch mob & hang the master minds of deceit, the Hedge Funds managers & the corrupt Wall streeters.

This new policy to hike taxes to astronomical levels- on anyone that earns over 250K. It appears that Obama forgot to mention that 80% of the over 250K people are honest hard-working small business owners. You know the "risk takers" of this country that also hire employees, make payroll, benefits, etc. In other words--"Small business owners, whom have nothing to do with Wall Street or Hedge fund managers."

So we are to tax to all time new levels these people--which represent only 5% of this nation, while expecting them to give the rest of us (95% of us) a tax break, of which 40% pay no taxes what-so-ever. Add to this--these same people, the 5% are also expected to pay for all our medical insurance premiums. This all according to Barack Obama's plan. This is what I call FUZZY MATH.

The Obama adminstration has in effect declared war on small business in this country. Still the largest employer in this country.

And to those of you who bought into this garbage & voted for it--you now OWN IT.

This theory was widely debunked last year during the election. So much so that McCain stopped using it. I'm not sure why Republicans have picked it back up.

FACT CHECK: GOP adrift on small business claim

"That's not likely, according to one in-depth analysis, which found that more than 95 percent of small business owners would be off the hook."

Why is that, oreo? Because Repugnicans are using income to make the claim that 80% of small businesses would be taxed, when small businesses aren't taxed on income - they're taxed on profit. And no small business I know of makes $250,000 a year in profit and if you do, you need to fire your accountant.

 

[Care4all]

While many in this country were discouraged with the way our country has been run over the last 8 years. You just voted for a man who stated that many--or should I say "almost none" of the small businesse's in this country make over 250K".

Well, it turns out that while Americans are ready to form a lynch mob & hang the master minds of deceit, the Hedge Funds managers & the corrupt Wall streeters.

This new policy to hike taxes to astronomical levels- on anyone that earns over 250K. It appears that Obama forgot to mention that 80% of the over 250K people are honest hard-working small business owners. You know the "risk takers" of this country that also hire employees, make payroll, benefits, etc. In other words--"Small business owners, whom have nothing to do with Wall Street or Hedge fund managers."

So we are to tax to all time new levels these people--which represent only 5% of this nation, while expecting them to give the rest of us (95% of us) a tax break, of which 40% pay no taxes what-so-ever. Add to this--these same people, the 5% are also expected to pay for all our medical insurance premiums. This all according to Barack Obama's plan. This is what I call FUZZY MATH.

The Obama adminstration has in effect declared war on small business in this country. Still the largest employer in this country.

And to those of you who bought into this garbage & voted for it--you now OWN IT.

PROVE IT! Oreo

PUT YOUR MONEY, WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS....

LINK please, showing 80% of the couples making more that $250k combined income are small businesses....

THIS has to be established before your thread can be debated properly or thouroughly. If someone asked this of you already, I apologize, I have not read the responses and only got to your original post, before having to respond.

thanks in advance!

Care

 

[editec]

Actually, I would say you failed because most small businesses in the US are sub chapter S corps.

Meaning what, exactly?

– C Corporation Versus S Corporation

Subchapter S is a tax designation as is chapter C

The basic difference is that S corps do not file a corporate tax return and the income from an S corp is reported on the shareholders individual tax return. Shareholders are also allowed to claim business losses on their individual returns.

The designation avoids a double taxation of profits from a small closely held business.

So when one argues that there are only X number of C corps that earned Y dollars in the US, one usually does so by tallying corporate tax returns which do not reflect S corps.

Yes, I understand that, I meant how is that germane to the issue that was being discussed?

 

[DavidS]

Meaning what, exactly?

– C Corporation Versus S Corporation

Subchapter S is a tax designation as is chapter C

The basic difference is that S corps do not file a corporate tax return and the income from an S corp is reported on the shareholders individual tax return. Shareholders are also allowed to claim business losses on their individual returns.

The designation avoids a double taxation of profits from a small closely held business.

So when one argues that there are only X number of C corps that earned Y dollars in the US, one usually does so by tallying corporate tax returns which do not reflect S corps.

Yes, I understand that, I meant how is that germane to the issue that was being discussed?

Meaning they don't pay taxes on income. They pay taxes on profit.

 

[raceright]

I live on Liberal/Socialist long Island and as there is no industry our economy is driven by our taxes paying for all the goverment jobs here.
Cops, School teachers,fireman, town employees,councilmen,building department employees and so on you get the point--I pay over $10,000.00 a year property tax and our business is services for schools (that do a worse job now than when private industry drove the economy). So hang on America and get a job with the Goverment because one way or another thats who is going to have all the money.

 

[editec]

– C Corporation Versus S Corporation

Subchapter S is a tax designation as is chapter C

The basic difference is that S corps do not file a corporate tax return and the income from an S corp is reported on the shareholders individual tax return. Shareholders are also allowed to claim business losses on their individual returns.

The designation avoids a double taxation of profits from a small closely held business.

So when one argues that there are only X number of C corps that earned Y dollars in the US, one usually does so by tallying corporate tax returns which do not reflect S corps.

Yes, I understand that, I meant how is that germane to the issue that was being discussed?

Meaning they don't pay taxes on income. They pay taxes on profit.

And in the case of Subchapert S corporation profit becomes personal income.

I'm still missing how that is germane to the original discussion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

– C Corporation Versus S Corporation

Subchapter S is a tax designation as is chapter C

The basic difference is that S corps do not file a corporate tax return and the income from an S corp is reported on the shareholders individual tax return. Shareholders are also allowed to claim business losses on their individual returns.

The designation avoids a double taxation of profits from a small closely held business.

So when one argues that there are only X number of C corps that earned Y dollars in the US, one usually does so by tallying corporate tax returns which do not reflect S corps.

Yes, I understand that, I meant how is that germane to the issue that was being discussed?

Meaning they don't pay taxes on income. They pay taxes on profit.

I am saying that Modbert is guilty of skewing the numbers in his argument by only citing C corps. Although he did mention pass through entities which incluse s corps but also LLCs and other designations.

Personally the income tax argument and the 250K line, while important, is not the larger issue.

The raise in taxes on the 2% that many of you are in favor of will not and cannot raise the money Obama needs.

While I am in favor of lowering all income taxes, the fact that Obama says he won't raise income taxes is a meaningless point and an obvious sidestepping of the issue of all the other ways to tax us he will exploit.

The cap and trade carbon tax will hurt the most. Energy bills will rise, companies will flee taking jobs with them and when people stop driving, turn down their thermostats (even though Obama seems to think cranking up the heat in the Whit House is OK) and the planned revenues from the carbon tax plummet, Obama will find another way to fund his "vision"

Add that to the higher state taxes you will be paying. In fact MA just doubled their state gas tax and you can expect more states to follow suit.

So folks, while I am against higher income taxes and unapologetic for that stance, it is a red herring right now designed to foster envy of the rich while the government slips a mickey into the collective kool aid and date rapes the rest of us with higher taxes other than those on income.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, I understand that, I meant how is that germane to the issue that was being discussed?

Meaning they don't pay taxes on income. They pay taxes on profit.

And in the case of Subchapert S corporation profit becomes personal income.

I'm still missing how that is germane to the original discussion.

the business is not hurt....

this is the business's profit, after all reinvestment in the company is done and expenses are paid...this includes a variety of things, especially if their small business is in their home, which is the case with more than HALF of what is considered a small business, is in actuality a single person or two, in their own business....

so computers, electric, heat,snow plowing, house upkeep and repairs etc, your business usage of your car, and its insurance, and your cost of goods for the business, can all be duductded from your taxes, including the business portion of your home and what you need to reinvest in your business...before you come out with your net profit...or ones taxable income....these are advantages that the individual income tax payer does not have, to lower their taxable income...

MOST all individual small businesses, do not NET more than $200-$250k in taxable income, so they will NOT be affected in the manner that oreo is saying.

Very few will.

Care

 

[Ravi]

Oreo is a chump. I can't figure out if she is easily fooled or wishes to easily fool. I've got news for you, Oreo: small business owners aren't stupid and they realize that taxes on businesses are not going up...taxes on personal income are going to go back up to what they previously were under Clinton. This will only affect income above $250,000. Most small business owners do not have an income above $250,000.