We can not afford to borrow money to pay for tax cuts. How about phasing in
higher rates over four years so people do not get upset over balancing the
budget and paying off the national debt.
Has the ability to incorporate the business, and paying business tax been taken
away from small business? Then he could pay personal taxes on the income he pays
himself. Something doesn't sound right. If people are earning
$250,000 from a business, that's personal income, not business income. Allowing a person to put personal income in their business to make more money,
should not come as a government subsidy.
In actual fact when taxes are higher that is when more money is kept in the
business as it costs more to take it out.Thanks to the GOP the tax
payers just got saddled with additional debt. If that money were divided evenly
between every man woman and child in Utah each person would receive a check for
$100,000. Instead of that we just add it to the huge growing debt
that nobody wants to seriously address.Our system is seriously
flawed in that all we have running are politicians. I can name several people
who are in the running who will not do anything serious about the debt.Here is a running list. McCain, Palin, Huckaby, Obama, Romney. Somebody
serious would figure a way to save 10% or make cuts to that amount. Not one of
the above mentioned names has the ambition to do that.Instead they
all promote reasons they should be elected. I can't think of a good reason for
any of them.
What people like Shaun in his comment above don't seem to understand is that
government won't use income from higher tax rates to pay off the national debt.
It just doesn't work that way.That's like suggesting giving more
booze to an alcoholic will help him slow down his drinking.
From the story: "Just under 4,500 of the more than 181,000 small-business
owners in Utah reported income of more than $250,000 in 2009, according to the
Utah State Tax Commission. Those 4,500 taxpayers represent less than one-third
of the Utahns earning more than $250,000."So the tax cuts
wouldn't help almost ALL of the small businesses in Utah only about 2% of small
businesses would benefit.The GOP/Teahaudist is Working for 2% of
small business owners and telling everyone that MOST small businesses will
suffer? With math skills like that no wonder the GOP got us where we are
Something doesn't sound quite right here. First, this is not a balanced article
- Mr. Nichols, the person featured in the article, is closely connected to a
Republican politician, who has a political agenda. Obvious source of bias. The
other source supporting the headline is the Republican politician himself.
Again, bias.Second, if Mr. Nichol's taxes are really going to go up
by $50K, his taxable income must be around $1.5 million or more. (The tax
increase only affects income beyond $250,000, and the rate increases by about
4%.) If he's really reporting $1.5 million in personal income even though he's
putting that money "back into the business," he needs a new
accountant. Either way, I'm more worried about people who can't find jobs or
get health care than I am about whether Mr. Nichols pays more in taxes.And Rifleman, the last two times federal income taxes were increased, the
federal deficit did go down. The money wasn't used for additional spending.
Unfortunately, as may be expected, this is a very superficial article. The
effect of the woefully incomplete information presented is that the article
comes off as either a simple scare tactic or a bunch of really bad math. The
truth is probably somewhere in between.On the surface, it appears
that Mr. Nichols's income that he is mostly plowing back into his business must
be about $1.5 million, because the increase in the tax rate would be only 3
percent on taxable income under $379,650, and 4.6 percent on income over that
threshold. But other factors may come into play. If the Bush tax cuts are not
extended, those making lots of money will see their itemized deductions and
personal exemptions phased out. They will also see capital gains taxes increase.
My guess is that these three items account for the lion's share of the $50,000
increase Mr. Valentine was talking about. Of course the article does not offer
any detailed explanation.Still, if Mr. Nichols is being taxed on
such large amounts of reinvested "profit," he should either hire a new
accountant or look at a different form of business.
I'm a business owner. The tax cut will make very little difference to me,
certainly not enough to hire anyone contrary to what everyone who has
proclaimed this as a miracle cure for the recession has been trumpeting. Very
few small business owners make over $250,000 as their personal income, which is
what you pay yourself after you write off all your business expenses. If it
looks like you're going to take a tax hit after a windfall year, plow some of
that money into stocking up on supplies or new equipment, or replace or buy
things that eventually will need doing ahead of schedule. The guy profiled in
the article at the very least needs a new tax weasel.
Did Mr. Nichols support the invasion of Iraq and Afganishtan? If not, then he
is probably "weak on defense," and we don't want anyone in our
country weak on defense---- if yes, then he needs to help pay for it, or have a
child or relative enlist and go over there and fight. Who pays for the $700
billion a year in defense spending?
The tax rate for the 2% that make more than 250K would go up 3%, from 36% to
39%. If this guy's tax bill would go up 50K, that means his income is about
1,666,666.67. If he is telling the truth, and my math is correct, cry me a
freaking river. If I made 1.6 mil, I'd have no problem paying an extra 50K to
help balance the budget.We need to start living within our means as
a country. George W. Bush more than doubled the total deficit of our 234 year
old country in 8 years, in part thanks to the tax cuts that we can't afford.
And his decisions are STILL driving a large portion of the deficit two years