Republicans LIE about the tax hike hurting small businesses

[Koios]

Tell that to my friend who is struggling with her business because of the tax hikes

What tax hikes?

Obamacare.

You know, the tax hike.

But if your friend has a small and struggling business, they get tax credits. Is your friend aware of that?

 

[eflatminor]

Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy.

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

 

[Koios]

No, he would not. He'd be more inclined to either defer income (stock options, etc) or if he requires that income to pay his bills, he'll find a way to make the company more efficient, which usually means laying someone off.

You also overlook the capital need to earn a reasonable return on investment. You may think making $400k a year is a lot, but that depends entirely on the investment required to generate that revenue.

C Corps are not small businesses.

Bullshit. C corps can be any size with any amount of revenue, or none. Same for S corps or limited liability companies.

They rarely are. You know that, yeah?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy.

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

Hey...............quite a few of those uber rich people were at the WH and met with Obama.

Know what they all said? That the proposed tax hike won't hurt them.

 

[ilia25]

Thanks for making my point. Anyone making north of $250k WOULD get hit. Now tell us again how that helps the business, it's employees, or the companies that will not sell their product or service to the small business owner because he has less take home pay.

That is a very different point -- one that has nothing to do with assertion that the small business will suffer.

But I can answer that. As Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy. The reason is that the rich have more money that they are willing to either spend, or invest in expanding the production capacity.

The US economy has hundreds of billions dollars sitting idle. That, by the way, is the primary reason why the government can continue to borrow at ultra-low rates despite all that talk about unsustainable debt and trillion deficits.

Investors are begging the government to borrow their idle cash at rates below inflation. Taking those money in taxes instead will have no effect on aggregate spending.

You said it would help businesses, increase aggregate spending. Backing off that now?

Of course not -- the incentive to expand the business in order to avoid paying more taxes is still there. And some I'm sure will do just that -- and their choice will be a boost for the economy.

My recent point was about those choosing to keep their income level and pay more in taxes . Their choice will have no effect on the aggregate demand.

So the net effect would be positive.

 

[eflatminor]

C Corps are not small businesses.

Bullshit. C corps can be any size with any amount of revenue, or none. Same for S corps or limited liability companies.

They rarely are. You know that, yeah?

Point?

 

[Stephanie]

How funny is it, the left is worshipping some BILLIONAIR (Buffet)...as if the man doesn't have ANY ulterier motives behind ANY of his bullshit

man oh man

 

[eflatminor]

Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy.

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

Hey...............quite a few of those uber rich people were at the WH and met with Obama.

Know what they all said? That the proposed tax hike won't hurt them.

Among that group was GE. So you're right, a Fortune 100 that manages to pay no taxes will probably not be hurt by an increase in tax rates.

 

[ilia25]

Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy.

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

From your article:
"It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."

That is exactly what happens when business owners choose spend more company revenues on business expansion. And that is what our economy badly needs.

 

[eflatminor]

That is a very different point -- one that has nothing to do with assertion that the small business will suffer.

But I can answer that. As Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy. The reason is that the rich have more money that they are willing to either spend, or invest in expanding the production capacity.

The US economy has hundreds of billions dollars sitting idle. That, by the way, is the primary reason why the government can continue to borrow at ultra-low rates despite all that talk about unsustainable debt and trillion deficits.

Investors are begging the government to borrow their idle cash at rates below inflation. Taking those money in taxes instead will have no effect on aggregate spending.

You said it would help businesses, increase aggregate spending. Backing off that now?

Of course not -- the incentive to expand the business in order to avoid paying more taxes is still there. And some I'm sure will do just that -- and their choice will be a boost for the economy.

My recent point was about those choosing to keep their income level and pay more in taxes . Their choice will have no effect on the aggregate demand.

So the net effect would be positive.

You may be sure, but history suggest otherwise. How's it working out in the UK after their tax rate hike? Boost for the economy? Not so much.

 

[ilia25]

How funny is it, the left is worshipping some BILLIONAIR (Buffet)..

Surprise -- and you won't learn it from Faux News. The left are not equating being rich with being evil.

 

[eflatminor]

Warren Buffet said yesterday, taxes on the rich will not hurt the economy.

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

From your article:
"It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."

That is exactly what happens when business owners choose spend more company revenues on business expansion. And that is what our economy badly needs.

You think if a business owner reduces his taxable income in order to avoid a higher rate that more money automatically gets invested in the business? What makes you think that would be the case? It makes no sense. After all, if all these business owners are reducing their incomes, they have less to spend. Who is going to expand their business when the people who generally have money to spend now have less?

Your idea lacks logic or reason. And as we're seeing in the UK right now, it lacks historical evidence.

 

[ilia25]

You said it would help businesses, increase aggregate spending. Backing off that now?

Of course not -- the incentive to expand the business in order to avoid paying more taxes is still there. And some I'm sure will do just that -- and their choice will be a boost for the economy.

My recent point was about those choosing to keep their income level and pay more in taxes . Their choice will have no effect on the aggregate demand.

So the net effect would be positive.

You may be sure, but history suggest otherwise. How's it working out in the UK after their tax rate hike? Boost for the economy? Not so much.

UK economy is in trouble because of massive spending cuts, not because the tax hikes.

 

[eflatminor]

Of course not -- the incentive to expand the business in order to avoid paying more taxes is still there. And some I'm sure will do just that -- and their choice will be a boost for the economy.

My recent point was about those choosing to keep their income level and pay more in taxes . Their choice will have no effect on the aggregate demand.

So the net effect would be positive.

You may be sure, but history suggest otherwise. How's it working out in the UK after their tax rate hike? Boost for the economy? Not so much.

UK economy is in trouble because of massive spending cuts, not because the tax hikes.

Then there's nothing more to say to you. You've drunk the cool aid, all of it.

Read the broken window fallacy. You have much to learn.

 

[ilia25]

Guess the rich folks in the UK didn't get Buffet's memo...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph

Follow their tax hike on the rich, they have less wealthy people, a worse off economy, and guess what? LOWER tax revenues.

Sounds like "hurt" to me.

From your article:
"It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes."

That is exactly what happens when business owners choose spend more company revenues on business expansion. And that is what our economy badly needs.

You think if a business owner reduces his taxable income in order to avoid a higher rate that more money automatically gets invested in the business? What makes you think that would be the case?

Because that is the only practical way a business owner cam reduce his personal income.

It makes no sense. After all, if all these business owners are reducing their incomes, they have less to spend.

But their business will expand and could generate more revenues in the future -- do you think that counts for something? Like retirement?

And as we're seeing in the UK right now, it lacks historical evidence.

As I said, the UK government engaged in massive spending cuts, and that is the reason for its economic troubles.

 

[ilia25]

You may be sure, but history suggest otherwise. How's it working out in the UK after their tax rate hike? Boost for the economy? Not so much.

UK economy is in trouble because of massive spending cuts, not because the tax hikes.

Then there's nothing more to say to you. You've drunk the cool aid, all of it.

Read the broken window fallacy. You have much to learn.

Broken window fallacy seizes to be a fallacy in a depressed economy, when you have a lot of idle production capacity.

 

[Koios]

Bullshit. C corps can be any size with any amount of revenue, or none. Same for S corps or limited liability companies.

They rarely are. You know that, yeah?

Point?

Yeah; the senario you offered would apply to companies owned by idiots who do not know how to setup a corporation. If you're wanting to have a money-maker, you go Sub S or LL.

If you want to attract lots investors, since maybe you have a bio-tech start up, you go C. But the company is not a for-profit, essentially. It burns through investor capital until you get your device or drug through trials overseas, and then a big player buys it and funds US trials, giving the investors a nice payday, which is taxed as LCGs.

 

[ogibillm]

just where did the king Obama come up with this 250,000 as rich?

and I can't believe they are trying to sell this tax won't be hitting small business

the propaganda from the LEFT is in high gear for their Dear Leader

Actually, according to the government office that looks at these things, the median income (middle class) in this country is about 48,500/yr.

250,000 is 5 times what the average income is.

Yeah, I'd say that if you make 250,000/yr, you're not gonna starve.

No, he probably wont starve... But the extra waitress at that restaurant owned by that guy making 250k who gets laid off just might.

the waitresses wages are a business expense. not profit. not taxed. if the business is being run well and productivity of the employee is a net gain for the employer that waitress will stay employed, even if that net gain is reduced by 3%

 

[eflatminor]

UK economy is in trouble because of massive spending cuts, not because the tax hikes.

Then there's nothing more to say to you. You've drunk the cool aid, all of it.

Read the broken window fallacy. You have much to learn.

Broken window fallacy seizes to be a fallacy in a depressed economy, when you have a lot of idle production capacity.

Complete and utter bullshit. You have nothing to back that up.

 

[BillyV]

What no one seems to be talking about is the President’s plan addresses only those with incomes below $250,000; every other provision sunsets, if I understand his proposal correctly. He only wants to pass something that affects those making less than $250,000, and not touch anything else. So, how are other provisions of the code to be treated? In 2000, prior to the Bush tax cuts, there were limits on itemized deductions (3% reduction on all income over $128,950 (single) up to 80% of the deductions), the personal exemptions were phased out at relatively low income levels (relative to today), the capital gains rate was 20%, dividends were at ordinary rates. The 4.6% rate increase seems like just one of many new (old) taxes. So the guy making $300,000 that loses $3-4,000 in itemized deductions and 3 or 4 personal exemptions will be hit for not just the $2,300 additional from the 4.6%, but also 39.6% of the $20,000 in lost deductions. Dividend and capital gains would cost even more. It isn't only the small rate increase on ordinary income.