Na, we need more tax increases on the poor and Middle class and cuts to entitlement benefits for everyone, easy and pain free for us ( the pols). All of us or most of us here know we now live in a plutocracy. Do we really believe the rich and they’re paid shills ( Congress, the WH, and the Scotus) are going to raise taxes on themselves? LOL. Ya right. Next great idea, please.

Maybe Dems aren’t offering a stark choice because they are not a stark choice?

No fucking tax cut extensions, no fucking deals, no fucking compromises, no fucking prisoners.

I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.
Milton Friedman
So, let me get this straight..You want to increase taxes on those making over $250,000 per year, knowing that most of these people are small business owners who hire 70% of all American workers? Knowing that they are already facing incredible cost hikes due to something called “Obama Care”? You want to raise taxes on the top 50% of wage earners who pay 96% of the federal income tax..knowing that 47% of Americans paid NO Federal income tax last year? You rationalle makes NO sense.

I think kdoren at No. 2 hit it right on the head. All of Congress are serving the same master, and it isn’t the public at large.

Except 50 percent of those surveyed agreed 85 percent should be held accountable to the other 37 percent that answered the survey in the negative. Also, you spelled “rationale” wrong.

We’re not talking about business revenue, we’re talking about taxable personal income. Equating the two is blatantly dishonest. How many “small business” owners do you know who take home $250K/year in taxable personal income? That’s a “small business” I wanna get in to.

Milton Friedman’s economic theories are junk.

Who could make that happen? How would that be put in motion?

This is why using the money to instead send every taxpayer a tax refund ..problem..govt will send refunds to NON_TAXPAYERS, which is not a refund but redistribution of wealth, which is in itself, repugnant.

Why not let all the tax cuts run out.Then pass a bill linking Tax insenative that reward employers who creat liveable wage job in the USA An extra Tax insenative for benifits all on a slideing scale.

Most, if not all small corps are “s” corps which file their business income on their personal income tax form, ie: they pay personal income tax on their businesses. This proposed tax hike will be extremely painful, especially, as I stated before, they are already facing extreme financial pressures from the current financial outlook, and from “Obama Care” mandates. Hey, go ahead with your argument..push for tax hikes..you will be extending the current level of unemployment and will probably cause it to increase..all of which will cause a downturn in revenue, no matter how high the taxes go.

I’m surprised that Dems, including Obama, are basically saying, Bush was 95% right about tax cuts (those up to $250,000).

One has to have filed a tax return in order to receive any type of refund. People who have less than $600 in taxable income for the year are not required to file a tax return and consequently will receive no refund. Try looking at the tax code rather than Fox News Channel on the idiot box.

Yup. That’s the proposal we could all live with.

Kucinich ’12.

How about we dismantle the IRS, get rid of federal income taxes altogether, and impose a federal sales tax on everything..and I mean everything, including food and medicine. That way, the poor will pay much less, the middleclass will pay their fair share and the rich will pay alot more, expecially since they are the business owners, their businesses do most of the high end purchasing. (ps: i misspelled a lot: my bad)

I’m the bookkeeper for a 67yo mom and pop real estate company, an “S” corps, and I guarantee you the owner doesn’t include business income on his personal income tax form.

That’s a horseshit idea that’s bounced around the wingnuts for decades. Wasn’t any good when some reichwinger came up with it and it’s gotten no better over the years.

Hey filing a tax return doesn’t mean you pay any taxes.

Hmmm, funny, yes we do!!!

Pros of S Corporation Status

No Corporate Tax: The biggest attraction of this business ownership is the tax advantages. The profits and losses of the business pass through to the corporation owner’s personal income tax. Like a Limited Liability Company, the tax “pass through” allows you to avoid “double taxation”.

You need to go back to bookkeeping school

The uber-rich sure do need more tax cuts. /s

The top 1% holds 34% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 50% holds just 2.5%. The bottom 40% owns absolutely nothing.

Yea Obama/Dems, keep jerking the proles around until the top 1% owns everything.

If Democrats actually want to win political fights, they need to pose a stark choice between their own position and that of the Republicans.

If Democrats actually want to win political fights, they need to have a difference between their own position and that of the Republicans.

Again, just opinion. Why is it a bad idea? Other than it gets politics out of the tax code..will do more to get rid of K street corruption than anything I can think of? Facts??

The country is broke. Let all the cuts end on December 31. Americans are never asked to sacrifice for anything (unless you are military) anymore. Paying taxes to restore the country is the patriotic thing to do. Where do people think schools, infrastructure, unemployment, food stamps, safety agencies, get their funding. Nothing is free and it’s time we realized it. Other countries fund their commons and their countries and citizens are enjoying a much higher standard of living than Americans. We are sliding into a third world nation.

Anything is better than doing the “temporary” extension of the Bush tax cuts which seemed to have been suggested by President Obama and Axelrod. I was expecting just that. I have learned to “abandon all hope” when it comes to the Democrats. But I must say I’m glad to see some prominent Democrats (and not the most liberal) are working on something better. Truly it is unconscionable to give the rich their tax cuts and expect the rest of us in this brutal economy to pay for it. They must do better than the “temporary” solution, which would expire right into the Republicans’ lap (sorry about the imagery, but you know what I mean– they’d be in control of the House). Whatever they do, the better act fast before the Republicans take the House. If they don’t there truly is no hope for them.

We need someone to publish the comments of the dems when they were “the Bush tax cuts” as opposed to them now supporting them when they are “the Obama tax cuts.”

Because rich people spend relatively little of their income, it would be a very, very, regressive tax.

But for a few exceptions, there is no difference. They are all corporate tools, only wearing different colored jerseys.

Kucinich ’12

Agree, 100%. After all, we are at war (times 2) aren’t we? Aren’t se all supposed to be making sacrifices in time of war?

Restore the Clinton 39.6% rate for 250 to 1 million, and add a 45% rate for over 1 million.

But that would require leadership, backbone, principles, none of which we have with Obama.

Killing the Bush tax cuts completely (just one more campaign promises failure to add to the public option, DADT, energy, and the list is long) is the best for the country – but this president is not into doing what is best for the country.

Passing just the child credit renewal plus the 10% bracket is more than 50% of the tax cut for the rich that went to the under 75,000 crowd – and about 10 % of the full tax cut cost (if the 10% bracket is changed to the equivalent disappearing with greater income tax credit for those whose top bracket is 25% (28 % if we return to Clinton rates) or less. Another improvement would be to convert the payroll tax to a base FIT tax on all income that is paid via a payroll withholding, with receipts dedicated to the SSA Trust Fund. That would raise a great deal more revenue as investment income is hit and the cap would be gone and would end the nonsense about how only 47% pay FIT taxes (the 47% being a lie I know, but you still hear that number).

But Obama is into fighting for that which was already decided before he began his fight – like the unemployment extension.

It is getting to the point where even the beautiful speeches do not get me to tune in to his voice – and I hear his staff is still worried that Hillary will make a run in 2012, so governing is not job one, stopping Hillary for all 4 years of the first term is job one.

Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is now available: “White House’s Move to “the Center” Ignores the Lessons of 2004”

The profits and losses of the business pass through to the corporation owner’s personal income tax

The smart business owner pays him/herself throughout the year, showing no corporate profit or loss at the end of the year. We ensure before the year is out that there is no reportable profit. The company also avoids paying any state corporate tax.

But sure, clouds hire up that lady behind the button on the battery backup except for nose-bleeds!

I didn’t know we were under a bridge, but apparently this thread has earned a dedicated KoolAid Kid. Kind of a badge of honor, eh?

I’m afraid you’ve gotten some bad accounting advice if your S-Corp is making over $250,000 a year. S-Corp’s are beneficial when the small business runs slight profits or losses. Losses are very good as they pass straight through to the individual.

Once businesses become highly profitable, it is better to organize as a C-Corp as corporate tax rates are typically lower than the highest personal rates.

Your arguments are worthless because they’re based on bad advice.

No sane, responsible American believes tax cuts across the board would be wise given the huge deficit spending occurring during the expenses of 2 wars. The first Bush tax cuts got us into this massive deficit, and extending them only exacerbates the problem. Because of the slowdown of this long recession, tax cuts for working middle class Americans might prove necessary to help spur growth. However, tax cuts for the wealthy at this time would be reckless and the resulting debt bubble created by it would draw the ire of all bond holders including myself. It is insanity to even consider it at this time.

Screw ‘em. Follow the law as the GOP wrote it and blame the tax increase on the GOP. WTF? Don’t the Democrats have ANY damn moxie at all?

Yeah, and I’m mostly to blame. Know better, too. Just can’t resist some of ‘em, though.

I too think Congress should let all the tax cuts expire, even though it may mean hardship to many of us.

The choice is pretty clear to me: Everybody gets permanent cuts, with the uberrich getting additional cuts that the rest of us don’t get; or, nobody gets nothin’. The former costs a pretty penny, the latter saves a pretty penny.

With tax cuts for all, we get a slight potential for limited job creation because the uberrich might buy an extra Lear jet, but not without some hardship. Most of those jobs will not be created in this country.

With no tax cuts for anybody, we get the strong possibility of a massive reduction in the deficit, and have some hardship.

LOL = Milton’s theories were suspect when he announced them because he could never settle on the time it took for monetary action X to cause economic result Y. Indeed his Nobel was for “achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy” – not for disproving Keynes. Good on consumption analysis – the rest not so good. But he did invent FIT payroll withholding.

As to the Sub C/sub S lies, the owner of a sub C making 500,000 before taxes would see his tax go up on the last 250000 by the 3% rate increase – and no one gets hire via that 7500 into a full time job. The 250,000 fellow has less than a $400 increase. The complaints are bogus. All the large numbers come from multi-million companies that file as Sub S being averaged with no one saying that the averages do not apply to the 250,000 owner who does not have that many employees and would be affected to the tune of a large family single fancy dinner out.

Please Fact check Fox lies before reposting them at FDL.

I’m so sorry……………..
An S corporation, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a corporation that makes a valid election to be taxed under Subchapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation’s income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is called single taxation; if the corporation is taxed as a C corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the corporation’s profits, and the shareholders’ dividends, will be taxed.
You pay more and I’ll pay less. It’s your choice.
Bottom line, any and all tax increases lead to lower revenue collection.
The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue. Scientifically proven.
I tell you what, why dont you guys just send in more money this year..give a gift to the IRS, since you are soooo for the tax hikes. That’s it..voluntary tax hikes

Bush sold tax cuts with relativly small checks to every taxpayer.
(relative to the entire cost of the cuts)
It worked.
This is a prefect example of how calling Rahm “the Democrat’s Rove” was absurd.

It’s strange to me that some of the KoolAid Kids don’t realize that we aren’t that into this White House. They can attack the White House all day, and we would cheer them on if only they would use real facts.

I think it’s safe to say that there are countless right-wing operatives lurking around these pages. Don’t they know that we aren’t Obots here? Why do they comment as if this were DKos? /rhetorical

Your condescension is showing.

I know what an S corp is, I’ve set up hundreds of them. There are also C-Corps, Partnerships, and LLC’s, as choices of how to set up a business.

THere are benefits and costs associated with each, and normally, with a small business, the S-Corp is the best choice. But once that business grows in profitability, there are advantages to the other choices. Namely, an S-Corp’s profits flow through to the taxpayer every year even if the taxpayer doesn’t take out the money. If he wanted to use that money to build his business, he still must pay taxes on it, and pay them at his personal rate, which at over $250,000 will be the highest.

With a C-Corp, you don’t pay personal taxes on the money if you don’t take it out of the business (either in salary or dividend payments). And usually, although the last few years have been an exception, the highest personal tax rates are higher than the highest corporate tax rates. Because of this, it can be wise to pay the lower corporate tax rate, let the money accumulate or spend it on growing the business, and you could even do stock transfers every few years that allows you to essentially tax those profits on your personal income tax at the capital gains rate, which is lower than the highest personal rates.

Typically, but not always (particularly if there are lots of shareholders), it’s better to look at other options once the business becomes highly profitable.

Or not.

Maybe I just made the whole thing up.

The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue. Scientifically proven

.

Scientifically proven huh???

Sort of like it’s been scientifically proven that global warming is a hoax? And the world is 6,000 years old?

Sheesh.

good ol’ kumari is just spewing the standard disproven a thousand times bullshit lies from her/his hero rush.

Yes. Because what they want is not all that much different than what Republicans want. I think the health care debate made that abundantly clear for those without partisan blinkers on.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=ae4e677b-c94e-4ca2-8a75-1522da263f61&headline=Thomas+Sowell%3A+Obama's+taxation+will+reduce+nation's+wealth

Thomas Sowell:

If the government’s goal is to increase revenues to the state (which is not necessarily a good thing, but let’s just stipulate that it is) the important questions become: What is the rate (or range) of taxation that doesn’t create incentives for people to be less productive or to evade (legally or illegally) paying taxes? At the low end of that range, what is the rate at which revenues start to taper off (after all, the tax rate can theoretically be zero)?

Sowell makes a simple point about the progressive tax system that bears repeating: those who are considered “wealthy” earners are often the ones who are finally realizing the fruits of their labor after many years of hard work. That is, once they have reached these tax brackets, they’re taxed at a higher rate. If we view tax brackets as rungs on the latter of upward mobility, we can see how progressive taxation punishes productivity. As Sowell reminds us, these are not wealth taxes, but income taxes.

This point should also give us pause as it relates to what entities file as higher earners. Very often these entities are small businesses. In these instances, the tax code makes no distinction between business and personal income. So the success (profitability) of an expanding small business gets taxed more–which is, of course, effectively a tax on growth and job creation.

Jon is right that the best way to counter the Bush tax cuts would be with Obama tax cuts (recycle the money back as, say, $1000 tax credits). Since Obama won’t do that, he should just go ahead and agree to a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts for the same reason Mark Twain advised young people to take up drinking and smoking:

“A man without vice is like a ship without ballast; if he runs into trouble he has nothing to throw overboard.”

It would let the White House counterpunch against any Republican proposals to cut the deficit by gutting a worthwhile govt program, Obama could frame each of proposed as a binary choice between cutting spending on those who need help vs throwing overboard by like amount the tax cuts for who don’t need the help. The obvious “compromise” then is for both spending and taxes to remain unchanged.

No one likes playing for a tie, but the likely alternative is for the WH to use Republican proposals as the baseline and the compromise will end up as simply making the spending cuts slightly less barbaric.

Bottom line, any and all tax increases lead to lower revenue collection. The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue. Scientifically proven.

Um, no. Even Laffer didn’t believe that. He concluded that at some point when marginal tax rates are too high that lowering them will increase revenue. When he made that statement the top rates were over 70%.

Clinton raised rates and revenues increased. Bush lowered taxes and revenues fell. Scientifically proven? LOL

The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue. Scientifically proven.

Um, lets set the taxes at zero, how much revenue?
Yeah zero, and that is the most you can get?

So, your scientifically proven, statement says you can never get revenue from taxes.

When the working class to has skin in the game, the Democrats have a chance to play real political hardball on this issue.

Exactly. This is why Social Security and Medicare have prove to be such hard nuts to crack for the Right. These programs have a strong constituency.

This is such a simple and obvious concept I have to believe that the Obama admin and the Democrats are either guilty of gross political malpractice or they really aren’t interested in a “progressive” agenda in the first place. The recently passed health care bill, hailed as the greatest progressive accomplishment since Medicare or the Civil Rights Act, is no such thing precisely because of this. Many of its provisions don’t kick in until 2014, and even then they won’t significantly affect most people who already have insurance. And the group of people that is arguably most helped by this bill has been (through an endless series of “compromises”) whittled down to a small minority of people in a demographic that typically stays away from the polls. The bill, in short, has no real constituency and will be vulnerable to attempts to circumvent it. In this respect the health care bill is much more like welfare than Medicare: a program that only helped a minority of powerless people who didn’t vote, and which proved easy to dismantle as a result.

Bottom line, any and all tax increases lead to lower revenue collection.
The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue. Scientifically proven.

By who’s science? Our current tax rates are way lower than during our boom years of the 50s and 60s. (see this on our historical tax rates.) So our economy should be stronger than ever, and our revenues should easily meet our needs, by your “proven” logic. But our revenues are in shortfall and our economy sucks.

But don’t let a simple thing like facts interfere with your cozy theory if it makes you happy.

If Democrats actually want to win political fights, they need to pose a stark choice between their own position and that of the Republicans.

That’s the thing, the Democrats aren’t interested in winning political fights. They are only interested in seeking bipartisan consensus and appearing as pragmatic moderates, a failed ideology in 2010 if there is one. Democrats do not want to win fights, they are ideologically bound to their passivity in the face of Republican assaults.

If Democrats actually want to win political fights, they need to pose a stark choice between their own position and that of the Republicans.

The Dems under Barry’s leadership won’t do it because there is no difference in ideology. It’s all theater designed to perpetuate the two pary duopoly. They’re not idiots, if they actually held a different position than the Republicans they could make that known very easily.

The Dems are cowering in the corner again, puking on themselves.

They need a political plan.
They need to frame the debate as ‘those Republican/Bush tax increases’ that are coming in January.
They need to let it expire for everyone.
They need to point out the whole mess is a Republican bill.
They need to then propose their own tax plan.
They need to let the Republicans filibuster it.
They need to then blame the Republicans for it.
BUT THEY NEED TO DO IT NOW!!!

Not perfect, but it’s at least a plan of action.

Not one tax cut has produced a net increase in long term revenue.
There has always been a short term jump in tax receipts, but ultimately every tax cut has
increased the deficit on their own merit.

Here’s some interesting reading:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

It would help if Democrats would start explaining and advocating to the public the benefits of a progressive tax structure. They’re not going to get anywhere unless they aggressively advocate progressive taxation as an issue. It’s a pretty simple concept based on fairness. I don’t see why arguing for “fairness” is so difficult for democrats, but I’m not convinced most democrats actually want progressive taxation.

Disregard quotation marks around fairness. I can’t seem to edit posts any longer.