Looks like it may be all or nothing, and the resistance is not just on the Republican side of things.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/more-democrats-break-with-obama-on-tax-cuts/
Washington (CNN) – Thirty-one House Democrats, most of whom face tough re-election bids this fall, have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them to extend expiring tax breaks for all income levels, including the wealthy.
Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders have made it clear they support President Obama's proposal to vote on a bill that only renews tax breaks for those making $250,000 and under. But with the midterm elections less than two months away, leaders have not yet decided whether they will schedule a vote on the legislation before voters go to the polls.
The letter–written by Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, Illinois Rep. Melissa Bean, Virginia Rep. Glenn Nye and Michigan Rep. Gary Peters–states that after listening to economists, small businesses and families over recent weeks they are concerned that "raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth."
What?
Politicians are trying to put off a controversial vote till after the election?
Next you will tell me that sometimes elected officials don't tell the whole truth.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 16, 2010, 05:26:55 PM
What?
Politicians are trying to put off a controversial vote till after the election?
Next you will tell me that sometimes elected officials don't tell the whole truth.
I know, funny isn't it. The controversy is that either a majority of their constituents disagree with allowing taxes to go up, OR they know (as the economists have told them) that this will raise the tax burden for 43% of all small businesses and cause the small amount of growth we have to suffer.
Also funny, now Pelosi backing down.
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/100311_pelosi23_ap_328.jpg)
Perhaps in the next week or so, extending the Bush Tax Cuts will be her idea.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2010, 09:10:17 AM
I know, funny isn't it. The controversy is that either a majority of their constituents disagree with allowing taxes to go up, OR they know (as the economists have told them) that this will raise the tax burden for 43% of all small businesses and cause the small amount of growth we have to suffer.
Also funny, now Pelosi backing down.
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/100311_pelosi23_ap_328.jpg)
Perhaps in the next week or so, extending the Bush Tax Cuts will be her idea.
There is no way 43% of small businesses make over 250k a year.
http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/aboutsb/sbfacts/sbnumber.html
In 2004, there were approximately 24.7 million businesses
There are new census numbers on small businesses. But I figure 2004 it either stayed the same or got larger.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 17, 2010, 09:10:17 AM
this will raise the tax burden for 43% of all small businesses and cause the small amount of growth we have to suffer.
Pull the other one.
Over 75% of US businesses have no employees. That's right, the vast majority are just one person working for themselves.
Among those that do, 22% make less than $100,000 a year.
Let's not let pesky facts get in the way.
Edited to add: Oh, and that data I was looking at? Receipts, not net income, so there are actually even fewer businesses that will be impacted.
Wait nathanm it gets even better!
The 2007 business census shows 21 million "non-employer" businesses. Their average "sales,
shipments, receipts, revenue, or business done" was $45,679. So they must have some sort of revenue multiplier that takes their total sales multiply by 6 into profit.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ECN_2007_GQRT2&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=EC0700A1
The 6 million other businesses average about 3.3 million a year in sales. So 75.9% of business average $45k a year in sales.
I'll see if I can find anything from the IRS about this, also. If I were more motivated, I'd call Census and see if I could get them to re-run the data so we could find out just how many small businesses are in the under-$250,000 (in receipts) category. I just don't care that much now that it's become plainly obvious Gaspar's number is at least two times higher than reality, though.
Edited to add: Just for reference, according to the IRS' statistics of income publication, net income averages about 10% of receipts, but for partnerships, it's more like 22%. It seems like net income for most businesses runs sub-20% of receipts. However, there are a few industries where net income is 50% of receipts, on average.
The high ones are: F&I with 50.20%, real estate and rental leasing with 53.33%, and holding companies with 80.28% of receipts reported as net income. So the vast majority of businesses with receipts under $400,000 a year probably have net income below the $250,000 threshold.
facts over rhetoric...
Thank you trogdor and nathanm
I'm glad you brought up "pass through" companies, and you're right my #s were wrong, and the way I represented it was incomplete. It's actually 48% of net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corps according to IRS#s.
The 3% figure, which is computed from IRS data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income. So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business. The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007. That's the number to look at, not the 3%. Would Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden deny that the more successful firms owned by individuals in the top income-tax bracket are disproportionately responsible for investment and job creation?
Linky: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html
Well there you go again quoting from the RNC house organ. Just another Murdochian conspiracy and baking of the numbers, Gassy.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2010, 03:50:22 PM
Well there you go again quoting from the RNC house organ. Just another Murdochian conspiracy and baking of the numbers, Gassy.
. . . and only the evil rich read the WSJ!
What's that I hear? The sound of shifting goalposts? :P
Also, I think we need to define small business. If you're talking about businesses with less than 10 million in annual receipts, that's quite different than referring to businesses that net 10 million a year.
So only part of businesses are businesses. Wow, what is the definition of it?
Small businesses are the ones small enough to not be affected by any tax action by the present administration and congress.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 17, 2010, 06:33:38 PM
Small businesses are the ones small enough to not be affected by any tax action by the present administration and congress.
This isn't entirely true. I could see small business being under $400k a year. Just because you have one good year doesn't mean you aren't going to lose 200k the next year. Etc etc.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 17, 2010, 06:53:21 PM
This isn't entirely true. I could see small business being under $400k a year. Just because you have one good year doesn't mean you aren't going to lose 200k the next year. Etc etc.
Business losses can be carried both forward (up to 7 years) and backward (up to 3 years). Stuff like this is why it's important to have a good accountant if you run a business. So in your scenario, $200,000 worth of income from last year could be offset, thus generating a refund check. ;)
With the perception of rising taxes, you'd be better off taking the carryforward later when your tax rate is higher. At least that's my understanding of how it works, which is admittedly cursory at best.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 17, 2010, 06:53:21 PM
This isn't entirely true.
Sure it is. A business will be defined as small after congress figures out what taxes will be. If you are not affected negatively, you will be declared to be a small business. Pretty simple really.
One of a wide range of tax cuts available. By choosing this option each tax year, pensioners can split up eligible pension income with their spouse or common law partner and reduce their overall tax paid.