What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go ahead MERCURY

Attack the author

Yes, you will say, AEI???????????? But they LIE!

We know, MERCURY, WE KNOW!

Obama’s Big Tax Increases on Small Business

By Stan VeugerSaturday, October 13, 2012

Filed under:Economic Policy, Government & Politics











It is quite a stretch for President Obama to argue that he wants to cut taxes for small businesses. In reality, he is proposing to increase taxes on small businesses by around $49 billion.



President Obama has touted his treatment of small businesses repeatedly over the course of the campaign, and last week’s presidential debate was no exception. “I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rate — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families,” argued Obama.

While in the strictest sense it is true that the president has lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times, this does not accurately reflect the totality of his small-business tax policy. In fact, on net, the president’s policy proposals will inflict significant harm on small businesses.

First, to the 18 times. Note how the president corrected himself after he accidentally mentioned tax rates. There is a clear reason for this: his “tax cuts” for small businesses have not been across-the-board marginal rate cuts, but instead have been targeted and often temporary deductions, tax credits, and subsidies. (It’s easier to cut taxes 18 times if your cuts are temporary.)

Of the 18, only 10 of them are still in place. Half of these 10 are extensions of programs first enacted by President George W. Bush or even before his time in office. (I assume that these are not “the failed policies of the past” to which the president does not want to return.)

So we started with 18, but now we’re down to 5. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the U.S. Treasury Department suggest that the sum total of the tax breaks created by the remaining five will amount to at most $3 billion in 2013.

When the president says that he wants to continue the tax cuts that he has put in place for small businesses, presumably this $3 billion is what he is referring to.

But it is important to remember that taxes can go up and down. Let’s take the president at his word and assume that the $3 billion-per-year cuts stay in place. Is this the totality of the president’s tax policy proposals for small businesses?

Every time Obama touts his small-business tax policies, what he is really announcing is that if reelected, he will destroy 200,000 American jobs in 2013 alone.

Nope. In addition to keeping the $3 billion in cuts, the president has proposed and even enacted several tax increases for 2013 that would apply to small businesses that are organized as pass-through entities, firms that have their income taxed at the individual, not the corporate level — for example, partnerships and S corporations. (The overwhelming majority of small businesses are organized as pass-through entities.)

Specifically, the president has proposed the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which will increase taxes by 4.6 percentage points on incomes above $250,000. Obama will increase taxes by a further 3.8 percentage points on these same incomes through the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution. (Is it unearned because “you didn’t build that”?) And we shouldn’t forget the reimplementation of the Pease provision, also scheduled for January 1, which adds an additional 1 percentage point to the effective tax rate for these businesses.

It should come as no surprise that these tax increases dwarf the $3 billion in tax decreases that the president has brought small businesses.

According to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, approximately $690 billion of business income will be reported on tax returns subject to the marginal rate increases. A very conservative estimate based on IRS figures of the distribution of partnership and S-Corp income shows that only about 80 percent of this income is actually subject to the highest marginal rate, which puts the size of the tax hike at around 9.4 percent of 80 percent of $690 billion, or about $52 billion.

That $52 billion is much more than the sum of all tax breaks, which was about $3 billion. So it’s quite a stretch for the president to argue that he wants to cut taxes for small businesses. In fact, he wants to raise taxes on small businesses by an order of magnitude.

What does this mean for the affected firms? On average, an additional tax bill of $48,000. That’s a stunning increase.

A major issue in this presidential campaign is jobs. How would employment be affected by this tax increase?

To be fair to the president, let’s adopt the White House’s own multiplier. The White House claims that the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs thanks to $447 billion in additional spending and tax breaks. This amounts to one job for every $235,000.

As we have seen, the president’s policies would raise taxes on small businesses by $49 billion. According to his own math, that would lead to some 200,000 fewer jobs.

By this arithmetic – President Clinton should be pleased by this method — every time Obama touts his small-business tax policies, what he is really announcing is that if reelected he will destroy 200,000 American jobs in 2013 alone. That’s 800,000 jobs over the course of a potential second term, or one additional unemployed worker for every 14 unemployed workers today.

“Normally,” said Obama back in August 2009, “you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes.” As the president knows, we have recession-level unemployment. Given what he said a few years ago, why does the president want to raise taxes on small businesses?

This would be an excellent question for the next presidential debate.

Stan Veuger is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
 
That goofy AEI article is suggesting that a tax rate increase of 35% to 39.6% on extremely profitable "small" businesses comes out to $48,000 each? That means the average affected firm is paying $413,000 per year in taxes (before deductions), making its owner about about $1.04 million per year in profit.

And your article is saying that many small businesses in this category are just pass-though corporations and tax shells? If that's true then they pay no income tax because it's passed on to investors who then pay it individually. An increase in the top marginal rate will not increase taxes on these types of businesses unless indirectly if you assume that investors are wealthy. If "small" businesses are making this much money they always have the option to incorporate. I can't see why they wouldn't if they're an ordinary business.

Lastly that blatantly partisan article is assuming that small businesses making over $1 million per year will not find a way to have even a penny in tax deductions. They just take the raw marginal rate figure and try to calculate the jobs lost. A more objective, less intentionally dishonest think tank would examine effective, post-deduction tax rates. But the AEI isn't about to be honest, is it?
 
Last edited:
Yes, Mercury, we know:rolleyes:

I actually read the whole thing and presented a valid critique. See my edit in the last paragraph because I added another point. I think the AEI is capable of taking an honest look at things but at least in this case they chose not to. They're trying to get Republicans elected, not present quality analysis.
 
Curry

Sometimes its ok to say



They have a valid point


Dont stoop

To levels reaced by

UD

And

RDS

And IREEMKUZINS
 
On the same day!

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout.

“We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good,” Obama said in Miami Thursday.

The Congressional Budget Office--based on figures from Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget---gives a different assessment.

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oba...dime-bailout-cbo-bailout-will-lose-24-billion
 
Before the bailout of General Motors, it was well understood that the world’s largest automaker was losing huge amounts of money in the US and was staying afloat thanks to stronger performance in overseas markets. Since the bailout, however, that dynamic has been turned on its head. Thanks to a leaner manufacturing footprint, debt eliminations and steadily recovering sales, GM’s US operations have generated the lion’s share of the company’s profit since the bailout. And now, as the rest of the world economy slows, GM is spending more and more of its taxpayer-enhanced cash pile to shore up its faltering foreign divisions. In fact, according to an analysis of GM’s SEC filings, the company is likely to incur over $6.5 billion in losses and expenditures overseas in the 2011-2014 period, not counting over $1.6b in foreign potential legal liabilities or several other incalculable expenses that could add up to billions more. Not only are these expenses a challenge to GM’s overall financial health at a time when it also faces billion-dollar expenditures on pensions in the US, it shows the basic problem with national bailouts of global companies. Taxpayers who were told they were saving an American company are now seeing their tax dollars flowing overseas by the billions.

A full calculation of GM’s overseas expenditures since the bailout would be a daunting task indeed. Simply by scouring GM’s latest SEC filings, one finds no shortage of losses and one-time expenditures abroad. In fact, nearly every division of GM’s global empire has required some kind of assistance over the last year or so. These expenditures come in many forms, from tax assessments to investments, from bailouts to severance deals, and due to the complex nature of GM’s global finances they cannot be fully accounted with precision. But they all emphasize the reality that, after years of living off foreign operations, GM’s bailed-out North American division is now bailing out the rest of the world.

Europe: Black Hole Opel, Unions, PSA

GM’s European losses currently get the most attention from analysts, and are nothing new for The General, which has reportedly lost over $14b in Europe over the last decade. Those losses and expenditures continue to add up. In the two full years since GM decided to cancel a planned sale of its European division Opel, GM Europe’s losses have added up to $2.74 billion, with another $617m lost in the first half of 2012 (EBIT). Additional goodwill adjustments of $590m in the first half of 2012 and $621m in 2011 further added to the losses. Additionally, GM has spent some $313m on voluntary severance for European workers, and expects to spend another $100m on the same program through the end of next year. Finally, GM has an undisclosed agreement with European labor unions to spend as much as $265m per year between 2011 and 2014. The company has pledged some $406m in inventory as collateral for that agreement. Not counting the spending agreement with European unions, this puts GM’s losses and outlays on Opel and GME in the last two and a half years at more than $4.25 billion.

GM’s losses in Europe aren’t likely to end there. This year, GM spent $400 million on a 7% stake in Peugeot-Citroen PSA, an investment that GM admits has already lost value. GM says it plans to hold onto that stake for the long term, and has chosen not to write down that loss… yet. Just today, rumors surfaced that GM could spend even more money on its Peugeot tie-up, possibly providing capital for an Opel-PSA joint venture. Meanwhile, the worst-case scenario for Opel involves an estimated $13b outlay to shut down plants and prepare Opel for a sale, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas. In this scenario, GM could spend as much as half of its cash pile extricating itself from its money-losing European operations.

GM losses and outlays in Europe, 2010-June 2012: $4.5b+

Asia: Korea Debt, Murky Hong Kong Dealings

But there's more!

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-the-gm-bailout-turned-into-foreign-aid/

But we will not save the jobs of the last tank factory in the United States!

Fuck U Oiho!!!
 
No surprise: The Public Secotr funds its promises to its workers the same way as it funds its promises to us.

Any wonder who will get paid first?

(Reuters) - The largest 100 public pension funds have around $1.2 trillion of unfunded liabilities, about $300 billion above the nearly $900 billion they reported themselves, according to a new actuarial study to be released on Monday.

The pension systems reported a median funding level of 75.1 percent. The study by the actuarial firm Milliman, which used different ways to value assets and measure liabilities, finds an aggregate level of funding of 67.8 percent.

Now, they get to manage your health care, but there won't be any DEATH PANELS...

Just non-binding recommendations to manage costs that will be like a Federal 55 mph SPEED LIMIT!!!

You could go 65mph, it was still legal, you just weren't going to get any of your taxs monies back...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-usa-pensions-study-idUSBRE89E0NF20121015

Greece is the word! Sing it John, Olivia...
 
No surprise: The Public Secotr funds its promises to its workers the same way as it funds its promises to us.

Any wonder who will get paid first?



Now, they get to manage your health care, but there won't be any DEATH PANELS...

Just non-binding recommendations to manage costs that will be like a Federal 55 mph SPEED LIMIT!!!

You could go 65mph, it was still legal, you just weren't going to get any of your taxs monies back...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-usa-pensions-study-idUSBRE89E0NF20121015

Greece is the word! Sing it John, Olivia...


The government doesn't manage your health care under Obamacare, dingus. Exactly how many lies have you bought into here?
 
Lies!

LIES!

Lies!

Obama is a liar!!!


“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Barack Obama, March 2007, SEIU Health Care Forum

FORWARD!!!

http://www.jbs.org/media/k2/items/cache/77f5bc8e329ca4e57b0c9f6179e44569_M.jpg
 
Last edited:
... and we all know, every fix gives us a chance for one step closer to the ultimate goal...


These frogs KNOW they are being boiled and the Doctor Chef here knows they are being boiled too, but his job is to say, "Who you gonna believe? ME? or your lying fucking skin???"
 
The grant portion of TARP has always had a cost since it's a grant. Do you think grant money should be somehow un-granted?

If you read the CBO article which I'm 110% sure you didn't, on page-one it says that the cost of TARP was just revised downward by 25%. Nice work spinning good news for America into bad news.

You're like my wife.

She comes home with a $600 dress and brags about how she got it down from $800...
 
Why business is terrified of Obama and why we belive iPABs will be Death Panels:

To Hell with the Law; Re-Election Is More Important
W.A. Beatty, PhD
October 16, 2012

This is clearly a case of Obama placing himself above the law, then sending us taxpayers the bill.

Congress passed, in 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA), which established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (better known as the Super Committee), whose mission was to reduce the deficit. As an incentive to the committee, a "sequestration" process, or automatic funding cuts, will take effect in January 2013 if the committee fails to reach agreement. The committee did not reach agreement, so "sequestration" funding cuts will begin in January. The Defense Department is scheduled to have its budget reduced by 7.5 percent, or about $1 trillion, causing layoffs and plant closings.

So what? We've known about these coming cuts since the Super Committee failed back in November 2011.

"Sequestration" has now become a major problem. According to a memorandum from acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Jeffrey Zients, "the budget sequestration clause in the law 'was never meant to be implemented'."

Have you ever heard of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act? It was passed in 1988 but vetoed by Ronald Reagan -- but then the veto was overridden by the Democrat-controlled Congress. The act requires that companies expecting mass layoffs or plant closings inform their employees 60 days in advance of the layoffs or closings. The WARN act provides for the collection of back pay, attorney fees, and punitive damages of up to $500 per day.

Guess what "sequestrations" will do. And guess what act it will invoke. And guess whose presidential campaign will be hurt by all the layoff and plant closing notifications 60 days before layoffs occur. Hint: it's not Mitt Romney! Guess when the notifications are supposed to go out. November first, five days before the election.

What is President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama doing about WARN? He has asked defense contract employers to ignore WARN -- that is, to break the law. Obama has asked defense contractors not to send out layoff notices to their employees in anticipation of "sequestration." This memorandum, dated September 28, 2012, explains Obama's position. The last sentence in the opening paragraph states, "... DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers." So Obama is trying to cast his advocacy of law-breaking as "saving resources" and "preventing anxiety." Ain't he swell? The second paragraph of the memorandum also provides some very interesting reading.

This is the first time in history that the White House has asked companies (of any type) not to file layoff or plant closing notices as required by WARN.

Without even bothering to ask Congress for approval, Obama has committed to pay defense contractors' penalties and court costs from the Pentagon budget. Costs could be as high as $500 million. Let's see...first Defense gets hit with "sequestration," then Obama commits to pay fines and penalties if defense contractors don't follow the law. Obama has placed the Pentagon and defense contractors in a catch 22, "creating additional economic uncertainty. They can break the law and keep the White House happy, or follow the law and annoy their major customer."

Obama also will make Congress complicit in his law-breaking. He did not even have the courtesy to ask them how they felt about his lawlessness. But Obama may not have the authority to offer to pay the penalties. And even if he does, a new administration could simply refuse to pay them. So what this situation boils down to is that penalty payments will be made if Obama is somehow re-elected. Further, some senators, such as John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), say that they will not allow government funds to be spent on penalties.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would avoid "sequestration." But Obama has chosen to ignore it and, most significantly, has not offered an alternative. I therefore must assume that he thinks his lawlessness will save his re-election chances.

So, the old saying that Shakespeare used in Hamlet, "Hoist With His Own Petard," is, ironically, quite appropriate here.
The American Thinker
 
Why business is terrified of Obama and why we belive iPABs will be Death Panels:

To Hell with the Law; Re-Election Is More Important
W.A. Beatty, PhD
October 16, 2012


The American Thinker


The article didn't even mention death panels, bro.

Keep on "believing".
 
Breakin' the law,
Breakin' the law...,



Here we go with the questions again so we can attack the answer and deflect.

:cool:
 
Oh lord, he already found his walnut tree...



lol


Your comments did not relate in any way to your own article. That's all I'm saying. Unless your evidence for the existence of death panels is possible future defense cuts?

Perhaps you pasted the wrong thing?
 
There is no perhaps about this fact:


You will ignore the obvious point due to the hateful internal dialog that causes you to read into everything your "enemies" post LIES!

"Why business is terrified of Obama and why we belive iPABs will be Death Panels:"

Your failures to comprehend are becoming legendary...
 
There is no perhaps about this fact:


You will ignore the obvious point due to the hateful internal dialog that causes you to read into everything your "enemies" post LIES!

"Why business is terrified of Obama and why we belive iPABs will be Death Panels:"

Your failures to comprehend are becoming legendary...


Why do you believe that there are death panels when I already linked you the passage in the ACA that specifically prohibits the IPAB from reducing benefits or eligibility?
 
Because, as repeatedly demonstrated, when it comes to their goals and agenda, Democrats will tell any lie to get where they want to go and break any law to get what they want to get which is why we keep telling you that what you think what the law says is irrelevant, what matters is the regulations that Sebelius, who is currently running around breaking election law to campaign for Obama, will write to do what she thinks is best for her wards and what she interprets the intent of the law to be...

That is why you screaming that the article does not say a thing about your baby, the iPAB is a distraction, a misdirection, a red herring as one might say.

It is also clear that you will go out of your way not to understand that which is clear and evident because it is your guy, not a Republican.

We see that everything Romney says, to you, is a lie.

Cannot wait to see you guys go 180° again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top