Joe the Plumber has caused quite the stir lately. I saw him on Mike Huckabee's new show Sunday night and he reminded me of several people I know around here. Joe could have been Steve or Bob or David. All ex-military, all opinionated and all potential small business owners because they have a plan and they work that plan, maybe not everyday but most days when they aren't busy dealing with the stresses of everyday life.
As a person who has seen failure on the small business level, I feel the pain of all those who try...but I would never tell them not to because owning your own business is the real American Dream these days. Working for yourself is freedom in its purest sense. Freedom to pursue your dreams of financial independence.
Depending on what figures you read, small businesses account for approx. 70-80% of all new jobs in America. Most start-up small businesses will fail, but the ones who succeed will do so because they worked hard, they worked smart and they perservered against great odds. Life is not easy on the way to "the top".
So on two levels I disagree with Barack Obama's new tax plans for America. On a personal level, I don't believe that people who work hard to build a better life should be taxed more when they achieve it. On a logical level, it doesn't make sense to heavily tax businesses who provide jobs or could provide more jobs.
Lastly, Redistribution of Wealth is a Socialism principle. America was not founded by Socialists. The Constitution is not a living and breathing document, it is a framework for freedom. Yes, we need Change, but what kind of change and at what cost?
Socking it to small business - Wall Street Journal 10/21
Barack Obama declared last week that his economic plan begins with "one word that's on everyone's mind and it's spelled J-O-B-S." This raises the stubborn question that Senator Obama has never satisfactorily answered: How do you create more jobs when you want to levy higher tax rates on the small business owners who are the nation's primary employers?
Loyal Democrats have howled over the claim that small businesses will get soaked by the Obama tax plan, so we thought we would seek an authority they might trust on the issue: Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. Here is what Mr. Baucus wrote in a joint press release with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley on August 20, 2001, when they supported the income tax rate cuts that Mr. Obama wants to repeal:
". . . when the new tax relief law is fully phased in, entrepreneurs and small businesses -- owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and farms -- will receive 80 percent of the tax relief associated with reducing the top income tax rates of 36 percent to 33 percent and 39.6 percent to 35 percent."
Then they continued with a useful economics tutorial:
"Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business' cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor."
Twelve Senate Democrats voted for those same tax cuts. And just to be clear on one point: An increase in "the demand for investment and labor" translates into an increase in J-O-B-S. So if lowering these tax rates creates jobs, then it stands to reason that raising these taxes will mean fewer jobs. From 2003 to 2007 with the lower tax rates in place, the U.S. economy added eight million jobs, or about 125,000 per month. The Small Business Administration says small business wrote the paychecks for up to 80% of new jobs in 2005, for example.
Mr. Obama's tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in three direct ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That's the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%.
Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate.
Mr. Obama responds that more than nine of 10 small businesses would not pay these higher taxes. Last Thursday he scoffed in response to the debate over Joe the Plumber, saying that not too many plumbers "make more than $250,000 a year." He's right that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years.
However, the point is that it is the most successful small- and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs in our dynamic society. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase. Joe the Plumber would get hit if he expanded his business and hired 10 to 15 other plumbers. An analysis by the Senate Finance Committee found that of the filers in the highest two tax brackets, three out of four are small business owners. A typical firm with a net income of $500,000 would see its tax burden rise to $166,000 a year under the Obama plan from $146,000 today.
According to a Gallup survey conducted for the National Federation of Independent Business last December and January, only 10% of all businesses that hire between one and nine employees would pay the Obama tax. But 19.5% of employers with 10 to 19 employees would be socked by the tax. And 50% of businesses with 20 to 249 workers would pay the tax. The Obama plan is an incentive to hire fewer workers.
For many months Mr. Obama and his band of economists have claimed that taxes don't matter much to growth or job creation. But only last week Mr. Obama effectively admitted that even he doesn't believe this. His latest "stimulus" proposal includes a $3,000 refundable tax credit for businesses that hire new workers in 2009 or 2010.
So what sense does it make to offer targeted and temporary tax relief for some small businesses, while raising taxes by far more and permanently on others? Raising marginal tax rates on farmers, ranchers, sole proprietors and small business owners is no way to stimulate the economy -- and it's certainly no way to create J-O-B-S.
A little-known pharmaceutical company that made billions selling opioids
'escapes' billions in fines and IRS payments
-
Endo began in 1920 as "Intravenous Products of America." Its website does
not mention opioids;
instead it highlights the company's "past successes and his...
1 day ago
1 comment:
Thank You for the information. I still disagree, but I appreciate the presentation of some accurate and unbiased facts. Too many people in the political analysis game are all opinion, no fact.
I would rather live in a town with 100 small businesses than with 10 mid-sized ones. I think that 100 businesses with 4 or 5 employees each creates more jobs (400-500) than 10 mid-sized businesses with 15 or 16 employees each. (150-160)
Obama's plan doesn't Discourage existing businesses from hiring more employees, it Encourages NEW businesses to try to compete with their bigger, better established neighbors. A small start-up company has enough barriers to success without us insisting on a tax rate that is the same as the largest business in town.
We don't expect babies and children to shoulder the same responsibilities as adults; why,then, do we think that a start-up with no established credit, no wholesaler relationships, no Economy of scale, no brand recognition, and no client rolodex should be able to compete against a business with all of these things, while paying the exact same rate of tax? Tax cuts for those at the bottom of the totem pole encourage people to start businesses. Tax cuts for those at the top of the totem pole discourage it even further.
This plan results in more choices for both consumers and employees, more J-O-B-S, and more opportunities for the next class of entrepreneurial Americans who would LOVE to have 250,000 dollars in profit with which to help their fellow Americans (by Paying their fair share into a system that made that success possible in the first place.) And Yes, I think that giving the next generation of Americans a helping hand up with my tax dollars IS patriotic.
I love my wife, if she needs money, what's mine is hers. Most people love their kids, and want to give them everything they possibly can. How then, can one love his country, yet not want to share an extra 3% of his NET INCOME OVER a Quarter-Million dollars to help it stay competitive, fair, and free for the next generation?
Post a Comment