Republicans LIE about the tax hike hurting small businesses

[Uncensored2008]

Only reason small business don't do well doing a recession is because people not working do not make purchases. Put people back to work will get people off entitlements and pay down the deficit and revive small businesses.

And the best way to get people back to work is to take money that would be used for wages away from business and pour it into the gaping maw of federal entitlement and unfunded pension liabilities...

Standard Disclaimer: Leftists - they define "stupid."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently. But mind my asking why?

She doesn't grasp that you are a fellow drooling Bolshevik.

It's to be expected; leftists are quite ******* stupid, you know...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.

My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.

So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.

Mike;

Our Bolshevik friends are here to propagate propaganda they have been given by the leftist hate sites. Reasoned discussion is not part of the plan.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.

My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.

So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.

And they would be lying.

What is your basis for saying that? Have you heard of the Tax Foundation? They, too, point out that raising the top two rates would have a far greater impact on small business income than Democrats are claiming:

IRS Data Shows That Businesses Will Bear Brunt of Obama's Tax Hike | Tax Foundation

Are they lying too?

 

[ABikerSailor]

10% tithings was a form of taxes and is still used by most chruches. Isn't the Jubilee Year a form of entitlement program? Similar to bankruptcy?

Psst... Tithes are voluntary. I pay nothing to any church - but no IRS agents are hunting me...

Depends on what church you belong to if the tithes are voluntary or not.

Mormons are REQUIRED to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and it's figured out how much that should be in a yearly meeting with the Mormon bishop.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Depends on what church you belong to if the tithes are voluntary or not.

Mormons are REQUIRED to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and it's figured out how much that should be in a yearly meeting with the Mormon bishop.

And if they don't? What will the Bishop do?

Not a damned thing. Catholics are the same way, they demand but have no power to enforce. The ONLY ones taking money at gun point are the government.

 

[ilia25]

Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.

My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.

So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.

And they would be lying.

What is your basis for saying that? Have you heard of the Tax Foundation? They, too, point out that raising the top two rates would have a far greater impact on small business income than Democrats are claiming:

IRS Data Shows That Businesses Will Bear Brunt of Obama's Tax Hike | Tax Foundation

Are they lying too?

They confirm that "only 2 or 3 percent of taxpayers with business income are taxed at the highest rates".

Also, they talk about the impact on business owners, which is very different from saying that the businesses themselves will be affected.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Depends on what church you belong to if the tithes are voluntary or not.

Mormons are REQUIRED to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and it's figured out how much that should be in a yearly meeting with the Mormon bishop.

And if they don't? What will the Bishop do?

Not a damned thing. Catholics are the same way, they demand but have no power to enforce. The ONLY ones taking money at gun point are the government.

Wrong...................................

Mormons are required to attend a Tithing Settlement with the Bishop each year. A member is questioned in a one-on-one interview with the Bishop to ensure the member is paying a full 10%. Those members who are not paying a full 10% loose their temple recommends and are prevented from entering the Temple.

Mormons who loose their temple recommends are in serious jeopardy of loosing their Celestial blessings. A Mormon who does not pay tithing cannot enter the temple. If a member cannot get into the temple, the member cannot learn the secret handshake, secret password, secret "new name" and special “sealings”. Without these, the member will be unable to pass Joseph Smith and the angels who guard the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom.

Mormons are commanded that tithing must come first before anything else. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the United States. Mormons often are told "I cannot pay my bills until I've paid my tithing." Mormons will even pay their tithing rather than give the money to a relative who is on the verge of eviction. Mormon published magazines (Ensign, New Era) constantly stress that tithing must always be paid.

Recently, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch passed legislation that allowed members to pay a full tithe even while they were in bankruptcy court. (See S. 4044).

Mormons are told: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).

Mormons who have not paid tithing will be denied a temple recommend and will be considered "unworthy". However; Mormons who pay "back-tithing" (some as much as $5000 or more) are instantly found to be worthy and can receive their temple recommends back once the money has been paid. The Mormon Church uses this as an extortion method when it comes to temple marriages. Parents or family members who have not paid tithing are required to pay back tithing - sometimes in the thousands of dollars - which must be paid before a temple recommend can be issued in order to see their own children married.

The Mormon Curtain - MORMON TITHING

You can be banned from entering the church.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Mormon Curtain - MORMON TITHING

You can be banned from entering the church.

The Temple, not the church - and who gives a ****?

Don't pay the IRS and they will come to throw you in prison - if you resist, they'll kill you.

Get a grip comrade, seriously.

 

[Koios]

Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.

My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.

So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.

And they would be lying.

What is your basis for saying that? Have you heard of the Tax Foundation? They, too, point out that raising the top two rates would have a far greater impact on small business income than Democrats are claiming:

IRS Data Shows That Businesses Will Bear Brunt of Obama's Tax Hike | Tax Foundation

Are they lying too?

Yes. I'm familiar with both. The FNIB is a business lobby, and the Tax Foundation, which is an anti-tax think tank. I also know that the majority of small businesses (their owners, vis a vis S and LL corps) make less than $100K / year, and that less than 1/10th make north of $250,000.

So ... a) not ignorant sources that might be innocently mistaken, and; b) wrong. Ergo, LYING!!!!

PS: read you own link. You, while not lying, are indeed mistaken.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Mormon Curtain - MORMON TITHING

You can be banned from entering the church.

The Temple, not the church - and who gives a ****?

Don't pay the IRS and they will come to throw you in prison - if you resist, they'll kill you.

Get a grip comrade, seriously.

The point is, you said that you don't tithe, and there are no consequences in any churches for not tithing at least 10 percent.

Admit it...............you're wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The point is, you said that you don't tithe, and there are no consequences in any churches for not tithing at least 10 percent.

Admit it...............you're wrong.

That's right, there is no consequence, zero. Tithing is 100% voluntary. No one is compelled to tithe. Oh, if I don't pay, I can't go into the Temple and learn secret handshakes? Who gives a ****?

Dude, admit it, you're full of shit.

 

[BillyV]

Investing more that you have, while still leaving enough to meet your other obligations.

Smart businesspeople do not do that.

And I'm sure you can identify where I indicated "investing more than you have"? The point is that people assume that someone who has $250,000 in taxable income has that available to spend on themselves and therefore can buy whatever personal items they want, so why not raise taxes on them. The reality is often that they have no more disposable income than their employees because they are investing that back into the business for growth. Adding to their tax burden doesn't mean instead of $250,000 to spend they only have $230,000; it could mean that they will not be able to add that additional piece of equipment that would help make their business more efficient and profitable (hence generating even more taxable income).

Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.

But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)

Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.

The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?

 

[Koios]

And I'm sure you can identify where I indicated "investing more than you have"? The point is that people assume that someone who has $250,000 in taxable income has that available to spend on themselves and therefore can buy whatever personal items they want, so why not raise taxes on them. The reality is often that they have no more disposable income than their employees because they are investing that back into the business for growth. Adding to their tax burden doesn't mean instead of $250,000 to spend they only have $230,000; it could mean that they will not be able to add that additional piece of equipment that would help make their business more efficient and profitable (hence generating even more taxable income).

Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.

But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)

Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.

The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?

Gotcha. Good info.

Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.

So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.

 

[BillyV]

Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.

But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)

Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.

The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?

Gotcha. Good info.

Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.

So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.

So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.

No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.

 

[Koios]

The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?

Gotcha. Good info.

Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.

So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.

So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.

No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.

Of course. Raise wages was the question, so I answered. Try to stay with me here, and for that matter, yourself.

Meanwhile, you're clueless. Productivity = working more for less, or more hours for same. Doesn't raise wages, in fact it's an indication of the opposite, in case it's pickling your brain why wages are down despite productivity being up.

Just raise the ******* minimum wage, to about $12, and good shit happens. You can sell a six-pack of beer again, to lots of folks. As Reagan '84 ads would say, it's morning again, in America. God bless it, praise babyjesus, it not longer sucks to live and work in America.

What a concept.

 

[BillyV]

Gotcha. Good info.

Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.

So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.

So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.

No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.

Of course. Raise wages was the question, so I answered. Try to stay with me here, and for that matter, yourself.

Meanwhile, you're clueless. Productivity = working more for less, or more hours for same. Doesn't raise wages, in fact it's an indication of the opposite, in case it's pickling your brain why wages are down despite productivity being up.

Just raise the ******* minimum wage, to about $12, and good shit happens. You can sell a six-pack of beer again, to lots of folks. As Reagan '84 ads would say, it's morning again, in America. God bless it, praise babyjesus, it not longer sucks to live and work in America.

What a concept.

So productivity is a bad thing, is that your reasoned, internationally known, C-level opinion? Talk about clueless. I'm done here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

She needs to get together with gramps. Then, they both need to go shopping for new accountants.

If your friend is struggling because of tax hikes, she's an idiot.

As we all know, President Obama lowered taxes in several areas for small businesses. Or, are you willing to say that the president singled out MY small business for a tax break but didn't give the same tax break to every other small business in the US?

 

[Koios]

So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.

No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.

Of course. Raise wages was the question, so I answered. Try to stay with me here, and for that matter, yourself.

Meanwhile, you're clueless. Productivity = working more for less, or more hours for same. Doesn't raise wages, in fact it's an indication of the opposite, in case it's pickling your brain why wages are down despite productivity being up.

Just raise the ******* minimum wage, to about $12, and good shit happens. You can sell a six-pack of beer again, to lots of folks. As Reagan '84 ads would say, it's morning again, in America. God bless it, praise babyjesus, it not longer sucks to live and work in America.

What a concept.

So productivity is a bad thing, is that your reasoned, internationally known, C-level opinion? Talk about clueless. I'm done here.

Nope. Just not the solution, as you foolishly think, but rather merely a bellwether of the ******* ...

PROBLEM!!

Meanwhile, solution to being clueless: GET A ******* CLUE!

 

[oldfart]

I think we need to take a peek at who is a small business. What.does the average McDonalds franchise owner clear on a store in a year? The guy who runs the independent hot rod shop up the road? Does he make 250k a year?

You make a good point. The Commerce Dept deies a small business and it is industry specific. For most sectors the upper lmit is 500 employees. In other areas such a personal service professions any flow-through entity is considered a small business. So all the major law and accounting firms are "small businesses".

My personal opinion is that what most people consider as a small business I would call a microbusiness. This is a sole proprietor, partnership, S corporation, or LLC with ten or fewer employees. It turns out that this accounts for a large share of actual employment growth. I would use the ACA kthreshold of 50 full-time equivalent employees to define the next benchmark "small businesses". To me, anything between 50 and 500 is a medium size business.

According to the IRS data by sector (as I remember it, the publication is at my office) the average fast food restuarant clears about $80k a year. I've seen a few attorneys who have a couple of employees who cear $250k a year or so, but no one in manufacturing, retailing, or service industries on that scale mak that kind of money.