Obama to Tax Rich for

[auditor0007]

The Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes.

The Pentagon's unenviable reputation for waste will top the congressional agenda this week, when the House and Senate are expected to begin floor debate on a Bush administration proposal to make sweeping changes in how the Pentagon spends money, manages contracts and treats civilian employees.

The Bush proposal, called the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act, arrives at a time when the nonpartisan General Accounting Office has raised the volume of its perennial complaints about the financial woes at Defense, which recently failed its seventh audit in as many years.

Military waste under fire / $1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting

Without doubt, our government wastes money in a way that would never be tolerated in the private sector, and this happens in all departments and agencies. Here's an idea; what if every department withing the federal government was set up so that bonuses were paid to department heads based on how much money that department comes in under budget? In other words, a department is given a set budget every year. If costs can be reduced, management and the "CEO", whoever heads that department, receives 15% of the actual savings. The more they save, the bigger the bonus. The way it works now, the more employees under someone, the more the bigger their salary. Why are their salaries not tied in some way to fiscal responsibility?

What is lacking in government, at all levels, is a decent rate of productivitiy. Growth in productivity in government lags far behind that of the private sector. This is why government continues to grow and grow, while producing little more than it ever has. If productivity could be increased by 15 to 20 percent, something the private sector achieves all the time, then costs would be reduced, or we would get more out of our goverenment for the money we spend.

http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/reorg/MendoncaAttachmentCNov04.pdf

 

[Care4all]

i thought the Bush tax cuts were gonna last until 2011?

Bush's tax cuts for billionaires are going to automatically end soon.

Their purpose, we were told, was to jump start the economy.

Well...they defintiely jump started the Billionaires eeconomies.

And the bubbles that followed burst.

As they always do when the rich have too much of the nation's money overall.

funny how I'm not a billionaire and the tax cuts saved me $2700 last year. you dumb fuck.

And they will save you that this year and next year and the year after that...?

your taxes ain't going up....if anything your tax savings go up to $3500 a year now minimum...with the obama tax relief, unless you are one of the ones that NET 250K of taxable income...then they will go up $700 bucks for every $10k over and above the initial $250k if I am understanding this correctly?

care

 

[auditor0007]

Phil Hartman's dead, fuckface.

and so is Sinatra.

I give you kudos for getting the reference.

Funny, no Republicans said a word when Reagan and Bush were running up the deficit with wasteful military spending.

I feel much better about spending money investing in America rather than shipping pallets of cash to Irag.

military spending isnt wasteful, fuckhead
and, there was democrats in control of congress

Spending on our military is not at all wasteful. However, much military spending is wasteful.

 

[elvis]

Bush's tax cuts for billionaires are going to automatically end soon.

Their purpose, we were told, was to jump start the economy.

Well...they defintiely jump started the Billionaires eeconomies.

And the bubbles that followed burst.

As they always do when the rich have too much of the nation's money overall.

funny how I'm not a billionaire and the tax cuts saved me $2700 last year. you dumb fuck.

And they will save you that this year and next year and the year after that...?

your taxes ain't going up....if anything your tax savings go up to $3500 a year now minimum...with the obama tax relief, unless you are one of the ones that NET 250K of taxable income...then they will go up $700 bucks for every $10k over and above the initial $250k if I am understanding this correctly?

care

you may be correct, no one has a crystal ball. I certainly am not going to take Obama's word for it. I get tired of people saying the tax cuts were for the rich, especially when you look at the lower brackets. Their percentages went WAY down. but the democratic candidates get up there and say the tax cuts were for the rich and everyone believes them.

 

[auditor0007]

raising taxes on the rich to the level of the prosperous clinton years, to pay for health care for all americans?

Oh, the horror!

I really don't have an issue with raising taxes back to the rates of the Clinton years. The problem is that this won't be enough based on what the government is now spending. The question is where will the rest of the money come from? Unless goverenment completely changes the way it operates, the only way to cover these costs will be through even higher taxes. We're heading down a road we don't want to be on.

 

[elvis]

raising taxes on the rich to the level of the prosperous clinton years, to pay for health care for all americans?

Oh, the horror!

I really don't have an issue with raising taxes back to the rates of the Clinton years. The problem is that this won't be enough based on what the government is now spending. The question is where will the rest of the money come from? Unless goverenment completely changes the way it operates, the only way to cover these costs will be through even higher taxes. We're heading down a road we don't want to be on.

Lower income families will suffer MORE if we go back to Clinton's tax rates. If you're an auditor, you should know that much better than I.

 

[auditor0007]

raising taxes on the rich to the level of the prosperous clinton years, to pay for health care for all americans?

Oh, the horror!

I don't care if we raise of lower them

AS LONG AS

1) Everyone pays the same percentage burden
2) We eliminate loopholes
3) We cut pork and unnecessary government spending (no more research into pig stink, go-kart parks, etc on the taxpayer dime).. make a law that it is illegal unless the governmental budget is in the black
4) Have efforts to eliminate or SEVERELY LIMIT any earmarks on bills (if you can't eliminate, limiting them to a limit of 1/100th of 1% of the spending proposed in the basis of the bill)
5) We start eliminating all government welfare handouts to corporations AND individuals
6) We eliminate invisible back door spending (grabbing from the SS fund and other intra governmental 'magic spending')

That's a good start

But if you want healthcare for your non-public-domain body... pay for it your fucking self

A flat tax, everyone pays the same rate. I have wanted to see this for a long time, although I'm not sure we ever will see it. A flat tax is still a progressive tax because you don't tax the first (x) amount of dollars. The poor don't pay any taxes. But you need to tax all income the same, including capital gains and inheritance, all of it. Everyone gets a standard deduction, and that's it. No more mortgage deduction, no more charitable contribution deductions, basically no deductions at all.

Most people will argue that you have to allow for certain deductions, but why do we? You pay your flat rate and live off the rest accordingly. This would allow for the lowest percentage tax rate possible if there are no loopholes to help people avoid paying.

 

[auditor0007]

My company pays over $1200 a month for my health insurance. I pay an additional $160. So if we had universal health care, and I was taxed $1360 a month for my part, and the company paid me the differance, there would be no differance in my pay check. Given that we pay double for our health care per capita than most other industrial nations, then I would also be paying for two other people. Looks good to me.

If government paid for all healthcare costs, employers would still pay a portion, although it would likely be less than now for most. It would most likely be set up the same as SS and Medicare where employee and employer contribute equally. On top of that, taxes on cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, who knows what, would be added to that. They might even create a national sales tax just for healthcare. This would be fine if the money went to healthcare only and wasn't abused as SS and Medicare money has been.

 

[Care4all]

funny how I'm not a billionaire and the tax cuts saved me $2700 last year. you dumb fuck.

And they will save you that this year and next year and the year after that...?

your taxes ain't going up....if anything your tax savings go up to $3500 a year now minimum...with the obama tax relief, unless you are one of the ones that NET 250K of taxable income...then they will go up $700 bucks for every $10k over and above the initial $250k if I am understanding this correctly?

care

you may be correct, no one has a crystal ball. I certainly am not going to take Obama's word for it. I get tired of people saying the tax cuts were for the rich, especially when you look at the lower brackets. Their percentages went WAY down. but the democratic candidates get up there and say the tax cuts were for the rich and everyone believes them.

Well, honestly, the Bush tax cuts did not help my husband and I that much....since i retired young we are only pulling in lower, middle class income to live off of....but we own our house outright, so this is possible....

so we were in the middle of the 15% tax bracket, the ONLY tax bracket to not get a full tax rate cut for the entire income bracket....it only gave us an income tax break for the first $6k of our income or so, reducing that income only to a 10% tax rate....from the 15%, the rest of the income in that 15% tax bracket, continued to be taxed at the 15% rate.

My husband and I were never able to have children so we did not benefit from any of the tax cuts and tax credits given to people with children, or the tax breaks for children in college...or anything like that....those of us without children, pay a great deal more in taxes on our income than those of you that do have children....that's just a fact of life...

add property taxes to pay for schools that we will never have children attend is another added tax to us, with no immediate benefit...but it allows those of you with children to pay less in property taxes than you would if we were not taxed for your children's schooling by the States....

I accept all of these taxes as my responsibility as an American though, so I am not really bitching about such in the sense that i don't want to pay them, but essentially every single couple out there who were not able to have children or just didn't have children, FUND your children if you have any....a distribution of our wealth, to you with children...via tax breaks given to you and not to us.

Care

 

[Newby]

Here's the thing - throughout US economic history, growth has been fairly constant regardless of the rate of tax. And you would expect it to be. Does anyone really believe that the wealthiest people in the world are going to stop working if their highest rate of marginal tax rises from 35% to 40%? Do you really believe that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett is going to say, "Well, I made $100 million last year, but with the tax rates up 5%, I'm only going to make $95 million this year, so I'm not going to work hard?"

I find this argument grossly underestimates the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people. America is not the wealthiest country on the planet because its marginal tax take is 6.5% less than the OECD average. It became the richest country on the planet because of the characteristics of the American people.

Yes, taxes can be too high. Yes, lower taxes are better. But some of the things people say are just silly.

BTW, one of the proposals in the budget is that what is known as carried interest of private equity and hedge funds will be taxed at the normal marginal rate of income. Carried interest is the fees these funds charge as a percentage of profits. For some reason I do not understand, carried interest has been deemed "capital gains" - even though it is not the fund manager's capital that is at risk - and thus taxed at the rate of capital gains, or 15%. Since the vast majority of a fund manager's earnings comes from carried interest, that means the marginal rate of tax for the fund manager is around 15%. In other words, you are taxed at a higher rate if you made $50,000 than a private equity or hedge fund manager who made $500,000,000.

Is anyone here willing to defend this as some unjust tax on rich people?

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

 

[elvis]

Here's the thing - throughout US economic history, growth has been fairly constant regardless of the rate of tax. And you would expect it to be. Does anyone really believe that the wealthiest people in the world are going to stop working if their highest rate of marginal tax rises from 35% to 40%? Do you really believe that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett is going to say, "Well, I made $100 million last year, but with the tax rates up 5%, I'm only going to make $95 million this year, so I'm not going to work hard?"

I find this argument grossly underestimates the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people. America is not the wealthiest country on the planet because its marginal tax take is 6.5% less than the OECD average. It became the richest country on the planet because of the characteristics of the American people.

Yes, taxes can be too high. Yes, lower taxes are better. But some of the things people say are just silly.

BTW, one of the proposals in the budget is that what is known as carried interest of private equity and hedge funds will be taxed at the normal marginal rate of income. Carried interest is the fees these funds charge as a percentage of profits. For some reason I do not understand, carried interest has been deemed "capital gains" - even though it is not the fund manager's capital that is at risk - and thus taxed at the rate of capital gains, or 15%. Since the vast majority of a fund manager's earnings comes from carried interest, that means the marginal rate of tax for the fund manager is around 15%. In other words, you are taxed at a higher rate if you made $50,000 than a private equity or hedge fund manager who made $500,000,000.

Is anyone here willing to defend this as some unjust tax on rich people?

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

I'll have to owe you a rep for that one.

 

[Care4all]

Here's the thing - throughout US economic history, growth has been fairly constant regardless of the rate of tax. And you would expect it to be. Does anyone really believe that the wealthiest people in the world are going to stop working if their highest rate of marginal tax rises from 35% to 40%? Do you really believe that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett is going to say, "Well, I made $100 million last year, but with the tax rates up 5%, I'm only going to make $95 million this year, so I'm not going to work hard?"

I find this argument grossly underestimates the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people. America is not the wealthiest country on the planet because its marginal tax take is 6.5% less than the OECD average. It became the richest country on the planet because of the characteristics of the American people.

Yes, taxes can be too high. Yes, lower taxes are better. But some of the things people say are just silly.

BTW, one of the proposals in the budget is that what is known as carried interest of private equity and hedge funds will be taxed at the normal marginal rate of income. Carried interest is the fees these funds charge as a percentage of profits. For some reason I do not understand, carried interest has been deemed "capital gains" - even though it is not the fund manager's capital that is at risk - and thus taxed at the rate of capital gains, or 15%. Since the vast majority of a fund manager's earnings comes from carried interest, that means the marginal rate of tax for the fund manager is around 15%. In other words, you are taxed at a higher rate if you made $50,000 than a private equity or hedge fund manager who made $500,000,000.

Is anyone here willing to defend this as some unjust tax on rich people?

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

We have one of the LOWEST EFFECTIVE CORPORATE TAX RATE, in the world...yes our corporate tax rates seem high on the surface,

but their effective rates, the rates that these corporations actually pay after they take all of their deductions and write offs and credits comes out to some of the lowest corporate tax rate in the westernized world.

Who's "they" on your comment above btw? The hedge fund managers? are you saying they will leave our stock market and go somewhere else?

I think not....on that!

Care

 

[Care4all]

Besides the fact that the consumers buying the corporation's product or service, is the one that pays the most of these corporate taxes....no?

And if it is the consumer using the products of the corps then that is how it should be....

if i do not buy or use the corp's products then i should not have to pay their share in taxes, no?

corporate taxes are like a user tax, no?

*I say this because many say that the corps raise the price of their product to cover their taxes....

 

[oreo]

Which is when BO says this crap will all be paid for, although I doubt it.

either the debt will be 20 trillion, or taxes will be 40 percent.

This is a great example of FUZZY MATH. President Obama basically stated that only 5% of the "working" American population make 250k per year. But, somehow while they're giving the rest of us a "tax cut" & or a "tax rebate check" to the 40% of this population that pay no income taxes at all--that the 5% will be able to pay down this soaring deficit--pay for all the rest income tax breaks--& now pay for universal health care too. Still LOL--

All these people who voted for Barack Obama believed this B.S! I would love to see the looks on their faces--"when this economy comes back"--& they get a look at their income tax liability. No matter what the middle class is going to be hit & hit hard for paying back all of the above.

The 40% who pay no income tax today--will also be hammered in federal income tax. It's coming in 2010--that's when the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

[oreo]

And they will save you that this year and next year and the year after that...?

your taxes ain't going up....if anything your tax savings go up to $3500 a year now minimum...with the obama tax relief, unless you are one of the ones that NET 250K of taxable income...then they will go up $700 bucks for every $10k over and above the initial $250k if I am understanding this correctly?

care

you may be correct, no one has a crystal ball. I certainly am not going to take Obama's word for it. I get tired of people saying the tax cuts were for the rich, especially when you look at the lower brackets. Their percentages went WAY down. but the democratic candidates get up there and say the tax cuts were for the rich and everyone believes them.

Well, honestly, the Bush tax cuts did not help my husband and I that much....since i retired young we are only pulling in lower, middle class income to live off of....but we own our house outright, so this is possible....

so we were in the middle of the 15% tax bracket, the ONLY tax bracket to not get a full tax rate cut for the entire income bracket....it only gave us an income tax break for the first $6k of our income or so, reducing that income only to a 10% tax rate....from the 15%, the rest of the income in that 15% tax bracket, continued to be taxed at the 15% rate.

My husband and I were never able to have children so we did not benefit from any of the tax cuts and tax credits given to people with children, or the tax breaks for children in college...or anything like that....those of us without children, pay a great deal more in taxes on our income than those of you that do have children....that's just a fact of life...

add property taxes to pay for schools that we will never have children attend is another added tax to us, with no immediate benefit...but it allows those of you with children to pay less in property taxes than you would if we were not taxed for your children's schooling by the States....

I accept all of these taxes as my responsibility as an American though, so I am not really bitching about such in the sense that i don't want to pay them, but essentially every single couple out there who were not able to have children or just didn't have children, FUND your children if you have any....a distribution of our wealth, to you with children...via tax breaks given to you and not to us.

Care

And you're going to lose what you received from the Bush tax cuts in 2010. Guaranteed.

 

[driveby]

Here's the thing - throughout US economic history, growth has been fairly constant regardless of the rate of tax. And you would expect it to be. Does anyone really believe that the wealthiest people in the world are going to stop working if their highest rate of marginal tax rises from 35% to 40%? Do you really believe that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett is going to say, "Well, I made $100 million last year, but with the tax rates up 5%, I'm only going to make $95 million this year, so I'm not going to work hard?"

I find this argument grossly underestimates the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people. America is not the wealthiest country on the planet because its marginal tax take is 6.5% less than the OECD average. It became the richest country on the planet because of the characteristics of the American people.

Yes, taxes can be too high. Yes, lower taxes are better. But some of the things people say are just silly.

BTW, one of the proposals in the budget is that what is known as carried interest of private equity and hedge funds will be taxed at the normal marginal rate of income. Carried interest is the fees these funds charge as a percentage of profits. For some reason I do not understand, carried interest has been deemed "capital gains" - even though it is not the fund manager's capital that is at risk - and thus taxed at the rate of capital gains, or 15%. Since the vast majority of a fund manager's earnings comes from carried interest, that means the marginal rate of tax for the fund manager is around 15%. In other words, you are taxed at a higher rate if you made $50,000 than a private equity or hedge fund manager who made $500,000,000.

Is anyone here willing to defend this as some unjust tax on rich people?

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

I'll have to owe you a rep for that one.

I agree, done ......

 

[elvis]

Which is when BO says this crap will all be paid for, although I doubt it.

either the debt will be 20 trillion, or taxes will be 40 percent.

This is a great example of FUZZY MATH. President Obama basically stated that only 5% of the "working" American population make 250k per year. But, somehow while they're giving the rest of us a "tax cut" & or a "tax rebate check" to the 40% of this population that pay no income taxes at all--that the 5% will be able to pay down this soaring deficit--pay for all the rest income tax breaks--& now pay for universal health care too. Still LOL--

All these people who voted for Barack Obama believed this B.S! I would love to see the looks on their faces--"when this economy comes back"--& they get a look at their income tax liability. No matter what the middle class is going to be hit & hit hard for paying back all of the above.

The 40% who pay no income tax today--will also be hammered in federal income tax. It's coming in 2010--that's when the Bush tax cuts expire.

future looks bright ahead.

 

[Red Dawn]

raising taxes on the rich to the level of the prosperous clinton years, to pay for health care for all americans?

Oh, the horror!

I don't care if we raise of lower them

AS LONG AS

1) Everyone pays the same percentage burden
2) We eliminate loopholes
3) We cut pork and unnecessary government spending (no more research into pig stink, go-kart parks, etc on the taxpayer dime).. make a law that it is illegal unless the governmental budget is in the black
4) Have efforts to eliminate or SEVERELY LIMIT any earmarks on bills (if you can't eliminate, limiting them to a limit of 1/100th of 1% of the spending proposed in the basis of the bill)
5) We start eliminating all government welfare handouts to corporations AND individuals
6) We eliminate invisible back door spending (grabbing from the SS fund and other intra governmental 'magic spending')

That's a good start

But if you want healthcare for your non-public-domain body... pay for it your fucking self

Man, what the F are you talking about? Why do rightwingers feel the need to rush to the defense of poor downtrodden rich people?

The rich are, and probably will into the foreseeable future, already paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us working schmucks. Why do you continue to labor under the impression that we need to skew the tax code to be "fair" to the rich? The income tax in only one form of tax, and slightly adusting the top marginal rate" on the income tax will have virtually no impact on Warren Buffet or Paris Hilton. They don't get wealthy off of wages. Wages are for working schmucks. Their wealth comes from investment income, which is already taxed at a generally lower rate than wage income. And most of their income is exempt from payroll tax, and if republicans had their way the rich would be paying zero tax on inheritance income and dividends income.

If anything, raising the taxes on the rich would be fair to working people.. It would make the rich as accountable on tax liability as the rest of us.

 

[oreo]

Here's the thing - throughout US economic history, growth has been fairly constant regardless of the rate of tax. And you would expect it to be. Does anyone really believe that the wealthiest people in the world are going to stop working if their highest rate of marginal tax rises from 35% to 40%? Do you really believe that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett is going to say, "Well, I made $100 million last year, but with the tax rates up 5%, I'm only going to make $95 million this year, so I'm not going to work hard?"

I find this argument grossly underestimates the industriousness and ingenuity of the American people. America is not the wealthiest country on the planet because its marginal tax take is 6.5% less than the OECD average. It became the richest country on the planet because of the characteristics of the American people.

Yes, taxes can be too high. Yes, lower taxes are better. But some of the things people say are just silly.

BTW, one of the proposals in the budget is that what is known as carried interest of private equity and hedge funds will be taxed at the normal marginal rate of income. Carried interest is the fees these funds charge as a percentage of profits. For some reason I do not understand, carried interest has been deemed "capital gains" - even though it is not the fund manager's capital that is at risk - and thus taxed at the rate of capital gains, or 15%. Since the vast majority of a fund manager's earnings comes from carried interest, that means the marginal rate of tax for the fund manager is around 15%. In other words, you are taxed at a higher rate if you made $50,000 than a private equity or hedge fund manager who made $500,000,000.

Is anyone here willing to defend this as some unjust tax on rich people?

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

We have one of the LOWEST EFFECTIVE CORPORATE TAX RATE, in the world...yes our corporate tax rates seem high on the surface,

but their effective rates, the rates that these corporations actually pay after they take all of their deductions and write offs and credits comes out to some of the lowest corporate tax rate in the westernized world.

Who's "they" on your comment above btw? The hedge fund managers? are you saying they will leave our stock market and go somewhere else?

I think not....on that!

Care

That's a load of "crock". I am a small-business person (sub-S) & have been in business for over 30 years. Of course, business expenses are deductible. This is the cost the business owners (the risk takers of this country) expenses out in order to keep the business running--"like payroll for employees", payroll taxes, equipment, tools, insurance, etc.

But if the bottom line after all of these normal "business expenses" are deducted--there are no such thing as "credits'. Where in the heck did you pull that one out? All "net" business income goes back to the owner of these business's to pay taxes on. If the owner made "after all of these normal business deductions" 250K--they will be penalized into a 40% income tax bracket--PERIOD. On the bottom line, small business, typically sub-S corporations are taxed in the same manner as you, the employee of said company.

This policy is anti-incentive for small business in this country, to take further risks, further headaches, to hire & grow their businesse's. That's not what I would refer to as an "effective" tax policy. LOL

 

[Care4all]

They'll take their money and their business elsewhere which is exactly what the left has been bitching about. We have the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world, yet you all scream to tax them even more and at the same time scream about companies relocating. It's an amazing display of stupidity or lack of education and common sense.

We have one of the LOWEST EFFECTIVE CORPORATE TAX RATE, in the world...yes our corporate tax rates seem high on the surface,

but their effective rates, the rates that these corporations actually pay after they take all of their deductions and write offs and credits comes out to some of the lowest corporate tax rate in the westernized world.

Who's "they" on your comment above btw? The hedge fund managers? are you saying they will leave our stock market and go somewhere else?

I think not....on that!

Care

That's a load of "crock". I am a small-business person & have been in business for over 30 years. Of course, business expenses are deductible. This is the cost the business owner expenses out in order to keep the business running--"like payroll for employees", payroll taxes, equipment, tools, insurance, etc.

But if the bottom line after all of these normal "business expenses" are deducted--there are no such thing as "credits'. All "net" business income goes back to the owner of these business's to pay taxes on. If the owner made "after all of these normal business deductions" 250K--they will be penalized into a 40% income tax bracket--PERIOD. On the bottom line, small business, typically sub-S corporations are taxed in the same manner as you, the employee of said company.

This policy is anti-incentive for small business in this country, to take further risks, further headaches, to hire & grow their businesse's.

There is no 40% INCOME TAX bracket? Please explain oreo?

If your small business NETS 250K of taxable income and this is done on your income taxes because as the owner, you chose not to reinvest that money in to the company and take it ALL as your income, you would be taxed at income tax rates for each segment of your income that fits in to the other tax brackets below you...

only the money, over and above you and your wife's $250K net taxable income, would be taxed $700 bucks more for every $10k extra you claim in taxable income if it goes back to clinton tax levels, is what the article stated in the beginning of this thread.

It is my understanding that the tax brackets with the Bush lower taxable rates would stay in effect, and only the rate that covers what you make in net taxable income ABOVE THE $250K, is where you will be taxed at a higher rate....

So if your net taxable income from your business, that you decided to keep for your family instead of the business, is $270k, then your taxes will go up $1400 dollars on the EXTRA 20K that you netted...

at least this is my understanding of our tax code.

care