Received a disturbing phone call from my accountant \ Obama taxes

[JBond]

The tax hike on businesses is far worse than I imagined. This will make sense to some and other will say no big deal.

Here is what it boils down to.

Obama is going to tax the Gross income of small businesses minus net sales. For a company that provides services as opposed to products, this is going to shut down many companies. I was under the impression he was going to increase taxes on the Net amount after all the usual deductions.

Example: A small company in the mid-west has a Gross of about $700,000. The Net of that company last year was about $90,000. Far under the Obama cut off of $250,000.

That small company is now being told it will pay additional taxes on an additional $480,000 under the plan as it stands, by Obama.

Said company has a meeting with said accountant next week. I'll let you know the details as I get them.

The bottom line is it going to crush many small businesses.

[numnuts23]

Yeah, it's going to be pretty bad. Really makes you wonder where that 95% comes from??

[Doomsday101]

Yeah, it's going to be pretty bad. Really makes you wonder where that 95% comes from??

I don't know especially when 95% do not pay fed income taxes. Are people going to get tax returns even though they do not pay fed taxes?

[numnuts23]

I don't know especially when 95% do not pay fed income taxes. Are people going to get tax returns even though they do not pay fed taxes?

I guess this is the change we hear so much about ;)

[NinePointOh]

Obama is going to tax the Gross income of small businesses minus net sales.

Where did you or your accountant get that from?

[Trouble]

Really makes you wonder where that 95% comes from??




Maybe Obama is counting on 95% of Americans to lose their jobs under his tax plan, therefore, the will have no income to pay taxes on.





:starspin

[JBond]

Where did you or your accountant get that from?

This was a 3 minute phone call. I am not an accountant. That is why I hire them. Like I said, I will provide the details as best i understand them after the full sit down meeting.

The biggest change is Obama is not going to look at Net but the Gross of a company minus sales. In service industries I am not selling a product such as a widget or nut but a service. The details in the plan do not look good for many companies.

If there are any accountants on the board, I would love to hear from you. I really believed I was far under the number Obama made up out of thin air, but my accountants are saying I'm not because of how Obama is going to classify some businesses.

[Sasquatch]

Is your accountant affiliated with the McCain campaign? ;)

I would like to see a link establishing the veracity of these details.

[joseephuss]

This was a 3 minute phone call. I am not an accountant. That is why I hire them. Like I said, I will provide the details as best i understand them after the full sit down meeting.

The biggest change is Obama is not going to look at Net but the Gross of a company minus sales. In service industries I am not selling a product such as a widget or nut but a service. The details in the plan do not look good for many companies.

If there are any accountants on the board, I would love to hear from you. I really believed I was far under the number Obama made up out of thin air, but my accountants are saying I'm not because of how Obama is going to classify some businesses.

Service is a product. It does not need to be tangible like a widget. Time and service often come with a receipt. It is something that is sold.

[JBond]

Is your accountant affiliated with the McCain campaign? ;)

I would like to see a link establishing the veracity of these details.

Fly out to Kansas next Tuesday and you can sit in on the meeting.

[JBond]

Service is a product. It does not need to be tangible like a widget. Time and service often come with a receipt. It is something that is sold.

That is how it always has been.
It seems to do with how Obama determines your net vs gross and sales comes into it some how. It scared me enough to schedule a full meeting.

I was trying to find out if anyone has any more details on the changes to tax law, Obama is planing. I am not trying to be a instigator. I was hoping there were some accountants on the board that knew anything about this.

I am very worried.

[NinePointOh]

This was a 3 minute phone call. I am not an accountant. That is why I hire them. Like I said, I will provide the details as best i understand them after the full sit down meeting.

The biggest change is Obama is not going to look at Net but the Gross of a company minus sales. In service industries I am not selling a product such as a widget or nut but a service. The details in the plan do not look good for many companies.

Even after searching, I haven't seen any source whatsoever that says anything like that -- not even from anyone attacking the plan.

The opinion of one accountant means little if the claims can't be verified. I've overheard a certified financial adviser with an MBA and decades of experience explaining to multiple clients that stocks have been plummeting because "the market is afraid of Obama winning."

[Royal Laegotti]

This was a 3 minute phone call. I am not an accountant. That is why I hire them. Like I said, I will provide the details as best i understand them after the full sit down meeting.

The biggest change is Obama is not going to look at Net but the Gross of a company minus sales. In service industries I am not selling a product such as a widget or nut but a service. The details in the plan do not look good for many companies.

If there are any accountants on the board, I would love to hear from you. I really believed I was far under the number Obama made up out of thin air, but my accountants are saying I'm not because of how Obama is going to classify some businesses.

Shortly after you have this meeting with your accountants and you find that the detail reveal Obama's plan is as bad as it seems now. If I were you I'd gather all my employees and show them the info. you were shown and tell them it's likely you will shut your business down if this clown wins and gets to put to practice the policies he wants. Yeah you'd be trying to influence their vote but you'd be telling the truth to. Maybe that's the wrong approach I don't know.

[Sasquatch]

It seems to do with how Obama determines your net vs gross and sales comes into it some how.

It should reassure you that presidents of the US don't make tax policy by executive fiat.

[masomenos]

The tax hike on businesses is far worse than I imagined. This will make sense to some and other will say no big deal.

Here is what it boils down to.

Obama is going to tax the Gross income of small businesses minus net sales. For a company that provides services as opposed to products, this is going to shut down many companies. I was under the impression he was going to increase taxes on the Net amount after all the usual deductions.

Example: A small company in the mid-west has a Gross of about $700,000. The Net of that company last year was about $90,000. Far under the Obama cut off of $250,000.

That small company is now being told it will pay additional taxes on an additional $480,000 under the plan as it stands, by Obama.

Said company has a meeting with said accountant next week. I'll let you know the details as I get them.

The bottom line is it going to crush many small businesses.

Ok, after some searching, this is what I found. Not sure if directly addresses the question, but from my understanding it does. Joe the Plumber get to help us out on this...

This morning, Joe “acknowledged that he wants to purchase the plumbing business for $250,000-280,000, not that he would net that much in profits.” Rather, “he would make much less.” If Joe buys this company, he will pay individual income taxes on the net profit from the business. Net profit is a business’ gross revenues minus its expenses. Based on publicly available information, the business Joe wants to purchase had $100,000 in sales – a good approximation of its gross revenues—last year. Given that the ratio of gross revenues to profits for small businesses (sole proprietorships) in the US is 22%, Joe would likely make about $22,000 per year in profit from this business– far below the $250,000 he would have to make in order to be affected by Obama’s rollback of a portion of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, in order to be above $250,000 in profit, Joe’s business would have to be making $1.14 million in gross revenue each year, making his business one of the top 0.1% of small businesses in Ohio. As Joe made clear in a recent interview, his business in fact will be in the 99% of Ohio small businesses that do not pay higher taxes under Obama.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/laurenkunis/gGgLTh

It looks like it is still just the net - deductions that is being taxed.

[JBond]

It should reassure you that presidents of the US don't make tax policy by executive fiat.

I also understand that my big hairy friend. But everyone says the dems will have an unbeatable super majority.

I am not trying to debate this. I am just wondering if anyone else knows anything about this.

[JBond]

Ok, after some searching, this is what I found. Not sure if directly addresses the question, but from my understanding it does. Joe the Plumber get to help us out on this...



http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/laurenkunis/gGgLTh

It looks like it is still just the net - deductions that is being taxed.

I pray you are right.

Wow. I never thought I would say that to you.

[Rogah]

If there are any accountants on the board, I would love to hear from you. I really believed I was far under the number Obama made up out of thin air, but my accountants are saying I'm not because of how Obama is going to classify some businesses.The good news is I am an accountant so maybe I can help you. :D The bad news is I am not a lawyer so maybe I can't. :(

Most states (I believe something like 46 of them) have a sales tax which is a tax on net sales. Whether you're Wal-Mart or Mom's flower store, whether you are making or losing money, whether your mark-up is 5% or 50%, you pay a tax on net sales (many states have exceptions for things like food or clothing but let's not get into that here). Obviously, as every consumer knows, this tax gets added to the bill. I go to Best Buy and get a $20 DVD, then I end up paying $21 at the register. Best Buy has to forward that $1 on to the state.

Now as far as federal taxes go... a business tends to get taxed on net profit, not net revenue. Your accountant is suggesting that Obama will change it to being taxed on net revenue minus net cost of goods sold, which sounds an awful lot like a national sales tax. That is not how I personally interpret Obama's tax plan although I certainly admit that politicians tend to be very deliberately vague during the campaign season when discussing such things.

IMHO, I am having a hard time thinking that such a drastic and fundamental shift in tax policy could ever be enacted. Even if that's what Obama wanted, Congress would run away from it as fast as possible.

[masomenos]

I pray you are right.

Wow. I never thought I would say that to you.

:laugh2:

[JBond]

The good news is I am an accountant so maybe I can help you. :D The bad news is I am not a lawyer so maybe I can't. :(


Now as far as federal taxes go... a business tends to get taxed on net profit, not net revenue. Your accountant is suggesting that Obama will change it to being taxed on net revenue minus net cost of goods sold, which sounds an awful lot like a national sales tax. That is not how I personally interpret Obama's tax plan although I certainly admit that politicians tend to be very deliberately vague during the campaign season when discussing such things.

IMHO, I am having a hard time thinking that such a drastic and fundamental shift in tax policy could ever be enacted. Even if that's what Obama wanted, Congress would run away from it as fast as possible.

That is what I was trying to say. That is why I am not an accountant. I should have a better idea next week. Ask your buddies in accounting if any of them have heard of this, would you?

[iceberg]

Is your accountant affiliated with the McCain campaign? ;)

I would like to see a link establishing the veracity of these details.

Fly out to Kansas next Tuesday and you can sit in on the meeting.

now that was funny.

[Doomsday101]

It should reassure you that presidents of the US don't make tax policy by executive fiat.

Really? The dems seem to be getting alot of milage out of the Bush tax plan

[notherbob]

I wonder how anyone can say what the taxes will be since the election hasn't been held yet and the members of the new congress haven't been elected yet and the tax bill hasn't been voted on yet by either house of congress.

All this talk about what will happen if McCain or Obama is elected is all speculation at this time. Whichever one gets elected will have to submit a budget and a plan and the congress will consider it then and change it however they want to.

No president can impose things on the congress, the congress will vote as it sees fit. The president can only sign or veto the legislation.

[Angus]

Ok, after some searching, this is what I found. Not sure if directly addresses the question, but from my understanding it does. Joe the Plumber get to help us out on this...



http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/laurenkunis/gGgLTh

It looks like it is still just the net - deductions that is being taxed.

Well, I doubt Joe will want to spend $250,000.00 to buy a business and work at it - worrying about inventory, licenses, permits, insurance, and keeping it from going broke - for a year to possibly make $22,000.00.

Looks like a losing proposition. Obama's dole would probably pay more to Joe (if other people, paying taxes, could be induced to go through that under the circumstances). That could make the dole inviting to a lot of people. Why work?

And this is from Obama's own web site?

:confused:

[Thanos68]

The tax hike on businesses is far worse than I imagined. This will make sense to some and other will say no big deal.

Here is what it boils down to.

Obama is going to tax the Gross income of small businesses minus net sales. For a company that provides services as opposed to products, this is going to shut down many companies. I was under the impression he was going to increase taxes on the Net amount after all the usual deductions.

Example: A small company in the mid-west has a Gross of about $700,000. The Net of that company last year was about $90,000. Far under the Obama cut off of $250,000.

That small company is now being told it will pay additional taxes on an additional $480,000 under the plan as it stands, by Obama.

Said company has a meeting with said accountant next week. I'll let you know the details as I get them.

The bottom line is it going to crush many small businesses.

:lmao:

[joseephuss]

Well, I doubt Joe will want to spend $250,000.00 to buy a business and work at it - worrying about inventory, licenses, permits, insurance, and keeping it from going broke - for a year to possibly make $22,000.00.

Looks like a losing proposition. Obama's dole would probably pay more to Joe (if other people, paying taxes, could be induced to go through that under the circumstances). That could make the dole inviting to a lot of people. Why work?

And this is from Obama's own web site?

:confused:

Wouldn't the $22,000 in net profits be the amount after he takes out his own salary and that of any employees, plus all the stuff you mentioned? Isn't that why it is referred to as "net profits"? The $22k may not sound like a lot when looked at by itself, but it is an extra $22k on top of his salary.

[Doomsday]

Wouldn't the $22,000 in net profits be the amount after he takes out his own salary and that of any employees, plus all the stuff you mentioned? Isn't that why it is referred to as "net profits"? The $22k may not sound like a lot when looked at by itself, but it is an extra $22k on top of his salary.

Yep, which is inline with what most service based companies sell for 10 times their annual net income.

[masomenos]

Well, I doubt Joe will want to spend $250,000.00 to buy a business and work at it - worrying about inventory, licenses, permits, insurance, and keeping it from going broke - for a year to possibly make $22,000.00.

Looks like a losing proposition. Obama's dole would probably pay more to Joe (if other people, paying taxes, could be induced to go through that under the circumstances). That could make the dole inviting to a lot of people. Why work?

And this is from Obama's own web site?

:confused:

Along with what the two posters below you said, if you like at the ratio that's talked about in the article, which the $22,000 figure is derived from, you'll see that that's the current average. That ratio would, most likely, change very little under an Obama administration and if anything would slightly increase for the majority of small businesses.

[Hostile]

I have yet to meet a small businessman who isn't scared to death.

I am trying to buy a small business right now, the bank is scared to death. They can't find customers right now, I walk in willing to be one and they are scared.

Be skeptical if your party demands you tow the line. Don't be blind.

[Ashwynn]

Now take the original post and extrapolate.

Small business wont want to pay that tax. Will either close or move away. Less jobs = less tax bae to hit in business and personal leading to more welfare money going out cause everyones out of work.

Pretty picture aint it.

Go Obama.

[masomenos]

Now take the original post and extrapolate.

Small business wont want to pay that tax. Will either close or move away. Less jobs = less tax bae to hit in business and personal leading to more welfare money going out cause everyones out of work.

Pretty picture aint it.

Go Obama.

Small businesses really can't move away, it's not like Joe the Plumber is going to move his new company to Ireland. :D

[iceberg]

Small businesses really can't move away, it's not like Joe the Plumber is going to move his new company to Ireland. :D

but if he can't afford to start the business because the taxes are too high, then he winds up working for someone else. unless their taxes are too high now.

the point i feel is we should be encouraging, not charging, businesses.

[VietCowboy]

I have not met anyone who would not be willing to make over $250K in profits because they'd be taxed higher. Everyone I've met says they'll gladly take the higher tax if that means they'll be getting over $250K in profits. Then again, most of us don't make that much in the first place.

[iceberg]

I have not met anyone who would not be willing to make over $250K in profits because they'd be taxed higher. Everyone I've met says they'll gladly take the higher tax if that means they'll be getting over $250K in profits. Then again, most of us don't make that much in the first place.

and when you get to that position and have the ability to keep growing, your tune changes.

it's easy to sit there when you don't have it and say how much you'd give up if you had something you don't have. when you work your hiney off to get it, you think differently.

i like watching BBCA because their news talks to both sides about the same.

but, i did hear some mechanic on the BBCA say he'd love to pay more taxes. *IF* he were in that bracket. easy to say it's ok to give when it's not your property they're taking to give away.

that's socialism.

[VietCowboy]

and when you get to that position and have the ability to keep growing, your tune changes.

it's easy to sit there when you don't have it and say how much you'd give up if you had something you don't have. when you work your hiney off to get it, you think differently.

i like watching BBCA because their news talks to both sides about the same.

but, i did hear some mechanic on the BBCA say he'd love to pay more taxes. *IF* he were in that bracket. easy to say it's ok to give when it's not your property they're taking to give away.

that's socialism.

for most people it would probably be true, but for me personally, I would donate the money back to charities/programs or send that extra money back to my family in VN. The way I live would not change were I to make more than I do now. For example, if I were interested in a car, I would find the best deal possible, not buy some more expensive car because I can.

If I were interested in owning a business, say opening a mental health clinic, it would definitely not be for the money.

also, I do have a pretty biased sample. Most of my colleagues and professors are not in our field for the money. I would say they work their butts off even after getting tenured.

If I were to go ask my mom's co-worker, the mentality would be different. They'd be singing the same tune as their employer, I'm sure, which is what you've said above.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't know especially when 95% do not pay fed income taxes. Are people going to get tax returns even though they do not pay fed taxes?

Yes they are. That's called "Spreading the Wealth."

It's not too late folks. The maniacal fiend can still be stopped.

:D

[Cajuncowboy]

I have not met anyone who would not be willing to make over $250K in profits because they'd be taxed higher. Everyone I've met says they'll gladly take the higher tax if that means they'll be getting over $250K in profits. Then again, most of us don't make that much in the first place.

You do understand that this so called tax break for the middle class will cost the middle class probably 20% in higher costs for goods and services? That is of course if they have a job and can afford goods and services after the business' layoff employees when they are forced to make cut backs?

You do understand that, right?

The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train and you are standing right in the middle of the tracks.

[iceberg]

for most people it would probably be true, but for me personally, I would donate the money back to charities/programs or send that extra money back to my family in VN. The way I live would not change were I to make more than I do now. For example, if I were interested in a car, I would find the best deal possible, not buy some more expensive car because I can.

If I were interested in owning a business, say opening a mental health clinic, it would definitely not be for the money.

also, I do have a pretty biased sample. Most of my colleagues and professors are not in our field for the money. I would say they work their butts off even after getting tenured.

If I were to go ask my mom's co-worker, the mentality would be different. They'd be singing the same tune as their employer, I'm sure, which is what you've said above.

maybe now it doesn't change anything. this is setting a direction, that's all. it's not a destination, it's not the endpoint.

this is the *start* of a direction and people are eating up because it's not bush. they want change and obama has it and he reinforces BUSH at every turn.

i don't like obama's policies because they take you into socialism. not there yet, no. but he's going in that direction and i don't want that for our country.

i also help my friends and family at every chance i get. *i* want that ability to do that not to give to the gov so they can waste it like they do. i think most people are willing to help and be charitable. let 'em. let the gov provide basic functions to run a county then stay out of my life and let me reap the good with the bad.

i want less gov. period. obama wants to control as much as he can.

do you or do you not view obama's policies as shifting towards socalism?

[iceberg]

You do understand that this so called tax break for the middle class will cost the middle class probably 20% in higher costs for goods and services? That is of course if they have a job and can afford goods and services after the business' layoff employees when they are forced to make cut backs?

You do understand that, right?

The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train and you are standing right in the middle of the tracks.

another reason i'm not all for taxing "big business". do people actually think a business will eat that cost or pass it on? wealth redistribution goes both ways.

[Angus]

For those who are sure people wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if they just were let in on getting more of the gold, I recommend watching or re-watching "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" with Humphrey Bogart. He was sort of that way, too, in the picture.

:)

[VietCowboy]

maybe now it doesn't change anything. this is setting a direction, that's all. it's not a destination, it's not the endpoint.

this is the *start* of a direction and people are eating up because it's not bush. they want change and obama has it and he reinforces BUSH at every turn.

i don't like obama's policies because they take you into socialism. not there yet, no. but he's going in that direction and i don't want that for our country.

i also help my friends and family at every chance i get. *i* want that ability to do that not to give to the gov so they can waste it like they do. i think most people are willing to help and be charitable. let 'em. let the gov provide basic functions to run a county then stay out of my life and let me reap the good with the bad.

i want less gov. period. obama wants to control as much as he can.

do you or do you not view obama's policies as shifting towards socalism?

Okay, I guess I don't know enough about tax policies, but how different would Obama's tax policies be from Bill Clinton? I would be okay with lowering the tax on the wealthy if you'll close all the loopholes they can go through to pay lower taxes.

I do agree the government spends money are useless and frivolous crap that does not work, and so, in that sense, that is why I am okay with getting deductions for charitable donations we make.

[Hostile]

You do understand that this so called tax break for the middle class will cost the middle class probably 20% in higher costs for goods and services? That is of course if they have a job and can afford goods and services after the business' layoff employees when they are forced to make cut backs?

You do understand that, right?

The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train and you are standing right in the middle of the tracks.No one is grasping that.

[Cajuncowboy]

No one is grasping that.

Which befuddles the heck out of me. It really is simple but Obama has people BS'd beyond anything I've ever seen.

[iceberg]

Okay, I guess I don't know enough about tax policies, but how different would Obama's tax policies be from Bill Clinton? I would be okay with lowering the tax on the wealthy if you'll close all the loopholes they can go through to pay lower taxes.

I do agree the government spends money are useless and frivolous crap that does not work, and so, in that sense, that is why I am okay with getting deductions for charitable donations we make.

i hate the tax system period. it's all a bunch of compromises anymore.

i'd love to just see a flat tax up to a specific rate and stop it there. once you hit the top rate whether you make $1 or $1,000,000,000 over it you pay the same taxes on it.

no deductions or anything of the sort. just flatten it and quit the games all around.

[VietCowboy]

i hate the tax system period. it's all a bunch of compromises anymore.

i'd love to just see a flat tax up to a specific rate and stop it there. once you hit the top rate whether you make $1 or $1,000,000,000 over it you pay the same taxes on it.

no deductions or anything of the sort. just flatten it and quit the games all around.

I would be okay with a flat rate, again, if all loopholes are closed.

How would no deductions affect charities though, I wonder? It might decrease scammers who hope to steal you out of your money, but I wonder if they'd struggle to get donations if there's no incentive for decrease taxes.

[iceberg]

I would be okay with a flat rate, again, if all loopholes are closed.

How would no deductions affect charities though, I wonder? It might decrease scammers who hope to steal you out of your money, but I wonder if they'd struggle to get donations if there's no incentive for decrease taxes.

i think many people are very willing to help. i've got a HUGE box of clothes, kitchen items, shoes i could never wear (my heel spurs make shoes hard to find) and some other things they're asking for. i need it out of the house, they come get it and can't make it any easier. i hope it goes to help someone or is sold to promote a social program. whatever it takes.

i'll likely get left a receipt i can put my own value on but i throw those away. i give it away because it's going to a good use, that's all.

[VietCowboy]

i think many people are very willing to help. i've got a HUGE box of clothes, kitchen items, shoes i could never wear (my heel spurs make shoes hard to find) and some other things they're asking for. i need it out of the house, they come get it and can't make it any easier. i hope it goes to help someone or is sold to promote a social program. whatever it takes.

i'll likely get left a receipt i can put my own value on but i throw those away. i give it away because it's going to a good use, that's all.

yes, I think individuals always rise to the occasions to help out, especially after disasters, which is great. I have to wonder about big corporations though, that donate millions to charities.

[iceberg]

yes, I think individuals always rise to the occasions to help out, especially after disasters, which is great. I have to wonder about big corporations though, that donate millions to charities.

i believe they still would. good PR for your local town is always good for business in general.

[Kangaroo]

for most people it would probably be true, but for me personally, I would donate the money back to charities/programs or send that extra money back to my family in VN. The way I live would not change were I to make more than I do now. For example, if I were interested in a car, I would find the best deal possible, not buy some more expensive car because I can.

If I were interested in owning a business, say opening a mental health clinic, it would definitely not be for the money.

also, I do have a pretty biased sample. Most of my colleagues and professors are not in our field for the money. I would say they work their butts off even after getting tenured.

If I were to go ask my mom's co-worker, the mentality would be different. They'd be singing the same tune as their employer, I'm sure, which is what you've said above.

Lets see I donated items to the purple heart and did not even right them down for tax deductions before (yes I can)

I will still tithe to my church oh that is a tax deduction as well

I have 2 boxes in my truck right now I am donating to Purple Heart and guess what even if I did not get a deduction I would still donate it.

[JBond]

You do understand that this so called tax break for the middle class will cost the middle class probably 20% in higher costs for goods and services? That is of course if they have a job and can afford goods and services after the business' layoff employees when they are forced to make cut backs?

You do understand that, right?

The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train and you are standing right in the middle of the tracks.


I have been preaching that concept for some time. Tax on corporations is a tax on everyone. Everyone pays an equal amount of the taxes passed on by companies. Porportionally it will hurt low income people the most because they are less equipped to deal with sudden price hikes. Then comes inflation and the dollar because worth even less. Then surprise, gas is $4.50 a gallon because oil is traded for in US dollars. The less the dollar is worth the more expensive gas becomes. The majority of the gas spike the last two years was to to the dropping value of the dollar.

[Cajuncowboy]

I have been preaching that concept for some time. Tax on corporations is a tax on everyone. Everyone pays an equal amount of the taxes passed on by companies. Porportionally it will hurt low income people the most because they are less equipped to deal with sudden price hikes. Then comes inflation and the dollar because worth even less. Then surprise, gas is $4.50 a gallon because oil is traded for in US dollars. The less the dollar is worth the more expensive gas becomes. The majority of the gas spike the last two years was to to the dropping value of the dollar.

I am not kidding, I think Obama and the MSM has BS'd these people into not being able to think. They are blind lemmings. I do not know why they don't see this but they will soon enough. Of that I am certain.

[Hostile]

I would be okay with a flat rate, again, if all loopholes are closed.

How would no deductions affect charities though, I wonder? It might decrease scammers who hope to steal you out of your money, but I wonder if they'd struggle to get donations if there's no incentive for decrease taxes.It wouldn't affect me at all. I give the same amount to charity every month and it is significant. As my salary rises I increase the donation. I never miss a month. I earmark (terrible word for charity) that money for that cause every month no matter what else I do.

Some people actually believe in charity beyond a tax deduction. I donate items to a local charity quite often. They always ask me if I need a receipt and I say no. I asked one time how many people ask for the receipt. The guy told me between 10 and 20%, most do not.

I think people are generally good and do good for reasons beyond a tax deduction.

I am so in favor of a flat tax and as you said, no loopholes.

[Heisenberg]

I kind of like the idea of a national sales tax like Huckabee was a proponent of. Not only would you get all your money at the beginning of every month without all the income tax missing, but you'd be able to trim down the lumbering giant the IRS has become and probably save quite a bit on government spending.

[Heisenberg]

There is so much overreaction going on in here. He's raising taxes back up to where they were when Clinton was president.

Can someone please point out how horrible we did under his presidency? Just how our economy came crashing down around us? How the cost of goods and services really hurt poor people so much more during his presidency because of the tax hike? Anyone?

[Heisenberg]

And what is this business of the 1 to 1 of tax burden being passed onto the consumer? That's never been the case.

If you cut taxes on corporations, all that savings does NOT get passed onto the consumer and neither does all the expense of a tax increase. It's still about setting your price at a point that drives demand.

[JBond]

And what is this business of the 1 to 1 of tax burden being passed onto the consumer? That's never been the case.

If you cut taxes on corporations, all that savings does NOT get passed onto the consumer and neither does all the expense of a tax increase. It's still about setting your price at a point that drives demand.

I always try to ask people like you how much is enough? Higher tax rates equals less tax revenue. Lower tax rates equals more tax revenue. Why would you want to raise taxes? Answer this simple question.

[Hostile]

There is so much overreaction going on in here. He's raising taxes back up to where they were when Clinton was president.

Can someone please point out how horrible we did under his presidency? Just how our economy came crashing down around us? How the cost of goods and services really hurt poor people so much more during his presidency because of the tax hike? Anyone?What part of if your salary is not raised you will be doing worse is not sinking in?

Taxes raised on small business will result in jobs lost and inflation as they raise prices and cut spending. The only one who wins is the Government who has more of your money coming in, but they have fewer people contributing and more welfare going out.

This is what I mean about neither side fixes anything.

[NinePointOh]

What part of if your salary is not raised you will be doing worse is not sinking in?

Taxes raised on small business will result in jobs lost and inflation as they raise prices and cut spending. The only one who wins is the Government who has more of your money coming in, but they have fewer people contributing and more welfare going out.

On the other hand, a large tax cut for the lower and middle class means those most likely to spend their money have more disposable income and therefore aggregate demand for those businesses' goods and services goes up.

Macroeconomics is not an exact science, nor is it as simple and black and white as people like to make it out to be - it's an incredibly complex field with thousands of dynamic, interrelated factors, which is why roomfuls of PhDs can still only come up with competing theories as to how to stimulate the economy. You're repeating the talking points espoused by the proponents of one theory, but those arguments are anything but fact.

[Heisenberg]

On the other hand, a large tax cut for the lower and middle class means those most likely to spend their money have more disposable income and therefore aggregate demand for those businesses' goods and services goes up.

Macroeconomics is not an exact science, nor is it as simple and black and white as people like to make it out to be - it's an incredibly complex field with thousands of dynamic, interrelated factors, which is why roomfuls of PhDs can still only come up with competing theories as to how to stimulate the economy. You're repeating the talking points espoused by the proponents of one theory, but those arguments are anything but fact.

Man, you sure do sum up things a lot better than I do. :o:

[iceberg]

What part of if your salary is not raised you will be doing worse is not sinking in?

Taxes raised on small business will result in jobs lost and inflation as they raise prices and cut spending. The only one who wins is the Government who has more of your money coming in, but they have fewer people contributing and more welfare going out.

This is what I mean about neither side fixes anything.

except if they tax those businesses out of existance, they get nothing, do they? this is the other side people don't seem to comprehend. i'm not pushing or bashing either side. people take stances like this as an attack on their guy and they go into D mode when THINK mode would work better.

if you tax less the business can reinvest in itself, and grow. that way a consistant tax rate will bring in more in the end when the business succeeds and makes more money.

20% of 1,000,000 for example is great. now if you raise the taxes and they pass on the cost and/or rev shrinks (where else would it go?) then 25 of $750,000 is what? a net gain? no i'm not saying 5% will result in a 250k dropoff, this is just an illustration.

now, is 20% of 1,250,000 better?

let the business grow and more taxes will come in w/o even having to raise them. let the business fall, you get less revenue from the taxes and the gov just goes to get it elsewhere.

[iceberg]

On the other hand, a large tax cut for the lower and middle class means those most likely to spend their money have more disposable income and therefore aggregate demand for those businesses' goods and services goes up.

Macroeconomics is not an exact science, nor is it as simple and black and white as people like to make it out to be - it's an incredibly complex field with thousands of dynamic, interrelated factors, which is why roomfuls of PhDs can still only come up with competing theories as to how to stimulate the economy. You're repeating the talking points espoused by the proponents of one theory, but those arguments are anything but fact.

trouble is, this theory can be used for either side, could it not?

no theory is fact or it would be called fact, not theory. if the lower and middle class want more disposable income, work to better yourself and get a better job.

[Doomsday101]

except if they tax those businesses out of existance, they get nothing, do they? this is the other side people don't seem to comprehend. i'm not pushing or bashing either side. people take stances like this as an attack on their guy and they go into D mode when THINK mode would work better.

if you tax less the business can reinvest in itself, and grow. that way a consistant tax rate will bring in more in the end when the business succeeds and makes more money.

20% of 1,000,000 for example is great. now if you raise the taxes and they pass on the cost and/or rev shrinks (where else would it go?) then 25 of $750,000 is what? a net gain? no i'm not saying 5% will result in a 250k dropoff, this is just an illustration.

now, is 20% of 1,250,000 better?

let the business grow and more taxes will come in w/o even having to raise them. let the business fall, you get less revenue from the taxes and the gov just goes to get it elsewhere.

I agree and the 1st who get hurt are the employees of these companies and business as they continue to lay off workers so not only do you have less taxes coming in you have more going out as workers are forced into unemployment

[BrAinPaiNt]

_hYpAYWqiwo

[NinePointOh]

except if they tax those businesses out of existance, they get nothing, do they?

Except nobody's talking about taxing businesses out of existence. Remember, the only tax increase is on businesses making more than $250,000, and it'll only go back up to where it was under Ronald Reagan. So if those businesses weren't "taxed out of existence" back then, why would they be "taxed out of existence" today?

if you tax less the business can reinvest in itself, and grow. that way a consistant tax rate will bring in more in the end when the business succeeds and makes more money.Okay, so why don't we just reduce all taxes to 0% and watch the industry boom? Oh, is it because that's terrible economic policy? Then now you're beginning to understand why macroeconomics isn't quite so simple.

20% of 1,000,000 for example is great. now if you raise the taxes and they pass on the cost and/or rev shrinks (where else would it go?) then 25 of $750,000 is what? a net gain? no i'm not saying 5% will result in a 250k dropoff, this is just an illustration.

now, is 20% of 1,250,000 better?You're completely ignoring the impact of the increased disposable income for consumers. The changes to the small business tax wouldn't tax place in a vacuum. Every economist in the country is giving you a facepalm.

let the business grow and more taxes will come in w/o even having to raise them.Yes, we've all heard the supply-side theory. That was the philosophy of the Bush Administration. It didn't exactly work out as planned.

[iceberg]

Except nobody's talking about taxing businesses out of existence. Remember, the only tax increase is on businesses making more than $250,000, and it'll only go back up to where it was under Ronald Reagan. So if those businesses weren't "taxed out of existence" back then, why would they be "taxed out of existence" today?

so if we're to stick at the $250k figure, do you believe 95% of "small businesses" only make $250k or less? if so, please define small business. i've yet to see that on a gov website. one i found is $750k and up.

Okay, so why don't we just reduce all taxes to 0% and watch the industry boom? Oh, is it because that's terrible economic policy? Then now you're beginning to understand why macroeconomics isn't quite so simple.

if you don't have a point, don't make one. no one ever said ZERO did they? i said keep it consistant and don't raise it as what seems to be the only solution. so don't use examples i didn't say as if i said them to prove your point.

You're completely ignoring the impact of the increased disposable income for consumers. The changes to the small business tax wouldn't tax place in a vacuum. Every economist in the country is giving you a facepalm.

no i'm not. i said if the business does better they can hire more and pay better. hence, more disposable income. i want to get there through people working for it. you seem to advocate getting there by taking from those who have it. "spread the wealth". you're not paying attention to what i'm saying and trying to pin me into a position i never advoated. quit it. if you're not spreading the wealth then please explain to me what you'll do with "more" taxes. unless it's paying off debt i'm against it. i'd be for paying more taxes if we addressed the deficit, not treated it as new income to spend and more programs to fund.

Yes, we've all heard the supply-side theory. That was the philosophy of the Bush Administration. It didn't exactly work out as planned.

and not much does, does it? i don't want more taxes and i don't want more government in my life. both of which obama stresses. i want more individual freedoms and personal accountabilty for our own success. and no one said bush's plan was working well that i've seen in a long time. now you're just playing obama and trying to scare people with bush'isms.

[NinePointOh]

trouble is, this theory can be used for either side, could it not?

Yes. Why is that trouble?

no theory is fact or it would be called fact, not theory.

Correct. Which is why, when discussing macroeconomics and tax policy, it's stupid to pretend the theories you adhere to are facts. That's true for supply-siders, Keynesians, laissez-faire proponents, Marxists, heterodoxists, monetarists, and everyone else to boot.

if the lower and middle class want more disposable income, work to better yourself and get a better job.

Well, good luck with that position. Every major political candidate in your lifetime will always support lower and middle class tax cuts.

[iceberg]

Well, good luck with that position. Every major political candidate in your lifetime will always support lower and middle class tax cuts.

not sure what this has to do with anything - i oppoosed taxing businesses more and more and i disagree with the small business defination. i never said increase the taxes of the lower and middle class, i said work to get more money on your own as another (but not ONLY) alternative.

[joseephuss]

You do understand that this so called tax break for the middle class will cost the middle class probably 20% in higher costs for goods and services? That is of course if they have a job and can afford goods and services after the business' layoff employees when they are forced to make cut backs?

You do understand that, right?

The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train and you are standing right in the middle of the tracks.

Why is it that if you cut taxes for the higher tax brackets, we don't see a similar reduction in the costs for goods and services? If they raise the costs of good and services to offset a rise in taxes why don't they do the the reverse when taxes are lowered?

Also, the deficit keeps going up no matter what. No matter which side is in charge the deficit just grows and grows and grows even faster when republicans are in the executive office. That is a fact.

Does the deficit not count? Do we take a "so what, let it grow approach"?

[JBond]

Why is it that if you cut taxes for the higher tax brackets, we don't see a similar reduction in the costs for goods and services? If they raise the costs of good and services to offset a rise in taxes why don't they do the the reverse when taxes are lowered?

Also, the deficit keeps going up no matter what. No matter which side is in charge the deficit just grows and grows and grows even faster when republicans are in the executive office. That is a fact.

Does the deficit not count? Do we take a "so what, let it grow approach"?

Barney Frank said with Obama expect larger deficits thanks to new handouts. So I guess China is going to finance the tax cuts\rebate checks for the people who don't pay taxes.

It's getting kinda nuts out there.

[Cajuncowboy]

Why is it that if you cut taxes for the higher tax brackets, we don't see a similar reduction in the costs for goods and services? If they raise the costs of good and services to offset a rise in taxes why don't they do the the reverse when taxes are lowered?

Also, the deficit keeps going up no matter what. No matter which side is in charge the deficit just grows and grows and grows even faster when republicans are in the executive office. That is a fact.

Does the deficit not count? Do we take a "so what, let it grow approach"?

Very legitimate question. The answer is that when the taxes are low, the business' invest more in their company meaning R&D, expansion, etc. When that happens jobs are created and more people are on the tax rolls and then we increase the tax revenue. Further when more people are at work, more people can buy the goods and services thus keeping the prices where they are at. Rarely however, do you see major price cuts because profit margins are maintained at a specific point to continue the corporate Business model.

The deficit is something that unfortunately, Dems or Repubs neither one has really addressed much except for when Newt was running the show in Congress. They actually did something about it. Other than that you are right. As far as the deficit goes, there is no way it will come down with Obama due to his 1 Trillion dollars in new, THAT'S NEW, spending he is proposing. Redistributing wealth will have no effect on the deficit other than causing it to grow because he will continue to spend, but will have fewer tax payers to show for it. And saddling the already over taxed is only going to exacerbate the problem.