|
Post by New Mama on Dec 19, 2012 14:34:20 GMT -6
Why am I still amazed that the left can't see the harm in raising taxes on business. In one of the threads here somewhere I recently highlighted the exodus of millionaires from the UK resulting from a sharp increase aka theft of their hard earned dollars in the form of higher taxes.
Here is another example...
This administration's answer to our debt and run away spending is to tax the wealth....the employers and entrepreneurs. They too will turn and move to tax havens and leave us in the dust.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 8, 2013 13:44:52 GMT -6
Tax the rich! That's what the voters wanted. What they didn't get ...because the liberal media ignored it... is that most Americans will see less in their next paycheck due to tax increases for 80% of the workforce.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 8, 2013 14:46:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 8, 2013 14:51:12 GMT -6
Why am I still amazed that the left can't see the harm in raising taxes on business. An outrageous statement. The taxes on businesses has not changed. Only the income taxes on those making more than $400K.. a compromise. The payroll tax "holiday" could not be sustained as THAT MONEY is (or should be) dedicated to the Social Security System... WHICH LEGALLY has no bearing on the budget except when it is robbed to pay for foreign wars and other illegal activities, and not repaid.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 8, 2013 14:54:24 GMT -6
... and BTW, the payroll tax is CAPPED at somewhere around $120K, so the statement in the article you cite is A LIE... There is no payroll tax on earnings above that cap, AND it is paid by everyone making less than that, there is no lower limit cutoff, so those making $10K or $20K are having that tax put on them too... Repubs should LOVE that, tax the poor!
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 8, 2013 15:38:29 GMT -6
... and BTW, the payroll tax is CAPPED at somewhere around $120K, so the statement in the article you cite is A LIE... There is no payroll tax on earnings above that cap, AND it is paid by everyone making less than that, there is no lower limit cutoff, so those making $10K or $20K are having that tax put on them too... Repubs should LOVE that, tax the poor! I think you have this confused with Social Security tax. Federal payroll taxes are not capped.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 8, 2013 15:44:04 GMT -6
Why am I still amazed that the left can't see the harm in raising taxes on business. An outrageous statement. The taxes on businesses has not changed. Only the income taxes on those making more than $400K.. a compromise. The payroll tax "holiday" could not be sustained as THAT MONEY is (or should be) dedicated to the Social Security System... WHICH LEGALLY has no bearing on the budget except when it is robbed to pay for foreign wars and other illegal activities, and not repaid. The reduction on the payroll tax from 6.2 to 4.2 was what Obama did not Bush. He reduced the payroll tax for EVERYONE to help him get elected and now it has expired. Obama got what he wanted and now we ALL pay more.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 8, 2013 16:17:14 GMT -6
Why am I still amazed that the left can't see the harm in raising taxes on business. An outrageous statement. The taxes on businesses has not changed. Only the income taxes on those making more than $400K.. a compromise. It is not outrageous to say that taxes are being raised on businesses. A good portion of businesses do make more than $400,000. Raising rates on long-term capital gains and dividends for top-bracket taxpayers to 20% from 15% together with other increases in medicare, an increase in the cap on social security to $113,700 and the 1 year phase out of the 50% depreciation bonus on equipment and or real estate will not pump up our economy or create jobs.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 8, 2013 16:21:04 GMT -6
WW II, the 50's and the 60's we had little global competition. We were the leader in industry with minimal threat. China and Japan didn't compete with us nor did anyone else. Everyone here was working and paying taxes. Wake up Gordon this is 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 8, 2013 16:39:33 GMT -6
You can't compare the 1954 Tax Code (in use through 1986) to the 1986 Code (since 1987). The 1954 Code had so many loopholes and writeoffs that only a few hundred people paid the top rate. The few hundred that paid it were either lazy, stupid or didn't care. I went into practice in 1976 (1975 tax year), so I worked with both codes for years. The 1986 law was written with the intent of being revenue neutral (exchange lower rates for less writeoffs) and ended up raising a lot more tax revenue than the 1954 Code.
If we go back to the 1954 rates, do we get the rest of the package that went with it? 27.5% percentage depletion? unlimited tax straddles? income averaging?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 9, 2013 0:36:56 GMT -6
I don't get why businesses are taxed at all. All income earned by a business eventually ends up in the hands of an individual person, where it gets taxed AGAIN. Why tax it twice? Why not just tax it when it gets to its final resting place: an individual with a Social Security Number.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 9, 2013 17:29:07 GMT -6
It doesn't really get take twice. Corporations pay only income tax on net earnings. Partnership usually don't pay income taxes the partners do as individuals
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 9, 2013 18:24:31 GMT -6
The income gets taxed twice for a C corporation (any big company you have ever heard of and a lot of small companies) and gets taxed once for S Corporations, LLCs, and Partnerships.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Jan 9, 2013 18:43:06 GMT -6
It doesn't really get take twice. Corporations pay only income tax on net earnings. Partnership usually don't pay income taxes the partners do as individuals Sure it does. Those "net earnings" don't hang around in the company basement as stacks of bills; they end up in the hands of the stockholders as dividends, where they get taxed again.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Jan 9, 2013 18:56:46 GMT -6
Forgot about the dividends they give out.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 10, 2013 10:41:51 GMT -6
... and BTW, the payroll tax is CAPPED at somewhere around $120K, so the statement in the article you cite is A LIE... There is no payroll tax on earnings above that cap, AND it is paid by everyone making less than that, there is no lower limit cutoff, so those making $10K or $20K are having that tax put on them too... Repubs should LOVE that, tax the poor! I think you have this confused with Social Security tax. Federal payroll taxes are not capped. Anita, the Payroll tax IS the Social Security tax.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 10, 2013 10:49:36 GMT -6
The income gets taxed twice for a C corporation (any big company you have ever heard of and a lot of small companies) and gets taxed once for S Corporations, LLCs, and Partnerships. Joe is right Tex... My business is a "C" corporation and as such I fill out an 1120 Form for that entity. My income is not taxed twice EVER. My net profits in my corporation get taxed. My payroll to myself is a a deduction against my gross corporate income and is therefore NOT taxed on my corporate 1120. The only time that you could POSSIBLY make that claim is if you pay corporate on January 1 instead of December 31. In that case, you didnt take the reduction in gross income and (stupidly) get taxed on that, and then taxed again on personal income on January 1. Anyone that does that deserves to go out of business. And yes, dividend are taxed twice. Ironic that more corporations dont give out bonuses to workers and reduce their tax burden, rather than pay out dividends and get taxed more.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 10, 2013 11:25:53 GMT -6
The income gets taxed twice for a C corporation (any big company you have ever heard of and a lot of small companies) and gets taxed once for S Corporations, LLCs, and Partnerships. Joe is right Tex... My business is a "C" corporation and as such I fill out an 1120 Form for that entity. My income is not taxed twice EVER. My net profits in my corporation get taxed. My payroll to myself is a a deduction against my gross corporate income and is therefore NOT taxed on my corporate 1120. The only time that you could POSSIBLY make that claim is if you pay corporate on January 1 instead of December 31. In that case, you didnt take the reduction in gross income and (stupidly) get taxed on that, and then taxed again on personal income on January 1. Anyone that does that deserves to go out of business. And yes, dividend are taxed twice. Ironic that more corporations dont give out bonuses to workers and reduce their tax burden, rather than pay out dividends and get taxed more. Gordon, your situation is 1 out of 500 in that respect. Very few owner/operator small businesses operate as a C corporation. I have to ask why did you set up as a C Corp.? If you are set up that way, you may want to research "choice of business entities" and at least consider your options. You can elect S Corp status in subsequent years fairly easily if all shareholders consent. Reducing the corporate tax burden by bonusing yourself works fine until the IRS deems it "unreasonable compensation" and bills you for dividend income (not deductible at the corporate level), thus the "double taxation". The IRS does just that routinely in situations that are not an "arm's length" transaction, such as paying yourself or your family members. This is not a problem with an S Corp or LLC. I would seriously at least read up on the differences between and S Corp and C Corp. I can think of just about zero circumstances in which a C Corp. is the optimal business entity for businesses with just a few shareholders. I don't know your situation so it would be out of turn to say absolutely what would be best, but would seriously check it out. Most C corporations are large ventures with many stockholders, the vast majority of whom are not employed for the corporation. The only way they get income distributions from the corporation is through dividends, which are indeed taxed at the corporate and individual level for the same income. Giving more bonuses to employees is great, but the reason most folks own stock is for their income, not giving it all out as bonuses to the employees.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 10, 2013 11:39:49 GMT -6
I have reviewed my C/S status frequently through the years, and never found a compelling reason to ch-ch-change to "C" in the past. This was particularly true in past years where I had relatively high capital expenses for equipment relative to income. Those have slacked off in recent years and I may revisit that again and may opt to ch-ch-change that status.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 10, 2013 12:30:11 GMT -6
Gordon, your situation is 1 out of 500 in that respect You do make me feel "special".. so "special" I will have to get my safety helmet out for using the keyboard. ;D
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 10, 2013 12:51:42 GMT -6
I think you have this confused with Social Security tax. Federal payroll taxes are not capped. Anita, the Payroll tax IS the Social Security tax. Payroll tax on SS went up as well as the limit. The Federal payroll tax went up on those making more than $400k/$450k for married as well as other taxes for those making more than $200k/$250k. People who get a paycheck pay Federal and Social Security taxes with many also paying State and City payroll taxes. It's all payroll tax. Those making $20k to 30k don't pay as much.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 10, 2013 13:35:48 GMT -6
Anita, you are confusing the Payroll Tax and the Income Tax, they are different creatures. Read your own article below... Anita, the Payroll tax IS the Social Security tax. Payroll tax on SS went up as well as the limit. The Federal payroll tax went up on those making more than $400k/$450k for married as well as other taxes for those making more than $200k/$250k. People who get a paycheck pay Federal and Social Security taxes with many also paying State and City payroll taxes. It's all payroll tax. Those making $20k to 30k don't pay as much. The term "Payroll Tax is very specifically applied to the FICA-Medicare Tax. The Income Tax is a different creature altogether. The "Payroll Tax funds specifically Social Security, The "Income Tax" goes into the general funds that are (supposed to be) used for operation of the remainder of the government. That is why the argument regarding "entitlements" is not wholly true. Social Security cannot cause the deficit to rise because the money does not come from the general budget. Over the years MUCH MORE money has been collected fo SS than has gone out to recipients. If there is a crisis here it is because, until Obama came into office, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded primarily through SS funds. Those funds were LOANED out to pay for the war under Bush. The war was put into the general budget under Obama (which is one MAJOR reason the deficit went up under him) as it should have been from the beginning. But the funds borrowed from SS to pay for the war have never been paid back. THAT is there is a "crisis" for SS. Peter was robbed to pay for "Paul's" War.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 10, 2013 13:49:12 GMT -6
Payroll taxes (at the federal level) generally refer to Social Security (7.65% of employment income up to $113,700), Medicare taxes (2.9% of employment income with no cap), and FUTA taxes (a small % which varies by state on the first $7,000). Some of it is capped, some of it is not. The new 3.8% Medicare tax on higher incomes is a separate tax which applies to all types of income.
For self-employed individuals, double the SS and Medicare percentages.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 10, 2013 13:50:49 GMT -6
And LBJ was the one who started tapping the Social Security cookie jar.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 10, 2013 14:34:45 GMT -6
Ok, I see your point. To me it's all a payroll tax but I stand corrected....income tax vs. payroll tax. I look at it coming out of my wages and incorrectly call it all a payroll tax.
In any event Obama got what he wanted higher taxes without any commitment to reducing our spending. We continue to rack up more debt and risk a deeper recession by increasing taxes on employers. We'll see how it all works out. Not working very well for other countries who did this earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Jan 10, 2013 15:19:17 GMT -6
If you want to know how much your regular payroll taxes went up, multiply the gross x 2%. It's that simple. The employee part of Social Security went from 5.65% to 7.65%. For those in the higher brackets, it gets a little more complicated and expensive, but the 2% applies to most taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Jan 10, 2013 16:22:01 GMT -6
That is why the argument regarding "entitlements" is not wholly true. Social Security cannot cause the deficit to rise because the money does not come from the general budget. Over the years MUCH MORE money has been collected fo SS than has gone out to recipients. If there is a crisis here it is because, until Obama came into office, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded primarily through SS funds. Those funds were LOANED out to pay for the war under Bush. The war was put into the general budget under Obama (which is one MAJOR reason the deficit went up under him) as it should have been from the beginning. But the funds borrowed from SS to pay for the war have never been paid back. THAT is there is a "crisis" for SS. Peter was robbed to pay for "Paul's" War. Not true. While SS is its own fund it is and has been a line item in the general budget since 1969. The bottom line did not ch-ch-change because Obama started accounting for the cost of the war while Bush paid for it outside the budget somehow. The POTUS does not fund anything without Congress. Congress must fund everything. Neither Congress nor the Treasury can borrow SS monies separately from the general budget because a separate fund does not exist it is only accounted for separately. To claim that Bush used SS money to pay for the war is misleading and not correct. Up until Clinton SS money was collected and maintained separately and the Social Security Administration controlled and loaned the SS funds when the government needed to borrow it and that had to be approved by Congress. What Clinton did was and accounting ch-ch-change to help balance the budget. He combined the SS money with income and business tax revenues to use for the budget and then provided IOU's to the SS Administration which is how he "balanced the budget". IOW the Federally backed IOU’s are counted as a receivable/asset on the Federal budget sheet. BTW, he also increased the threshold for seniors from 50% to 85% on Social Security income that can be taxed. Additionally, he changed the accounting of how funding commitments for things like Section 8 are done. So much of the balancing of the budget and budget surplus was done with accounting ch-ch-changes not actual cash. No President has had to specifically ask to borrow SS funds since Clinton. The cost of the war under Bush was approved by Congress and paid for with Federal Funds that happen to include SS money.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 11, 2013 7:01:58 GMT -6
Anita, how can you say "To claim that Bush used SS money to pay for the war is misleading and not correct. " IT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. To date $700B have come out of the SS trust fund, in the form of IOU's, to pay for Afghanistan alone. These IOU's are non-marketable, and simply state that one dept of the government has borrowed for the SS Trust Fund. Yes, that money has been tapped into since LBJ, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is where the bottom fell out. Anita, if you dont believe me, read this. Over the years I have read most of you posts, respectfully. Now it is time to repay. This is 18 months old, but the facts are essentially the same. SS IS NOT part of the budget, and it is broke because it has been pilfered for well over a generation as a source of OF BUDGET money. Forbes
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 11, 2013 7:07:00 GMT -6
There are a LOT of RICH people who benefited financially from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... and you wonder why so many people reelected a President who ran on a "Tax the Rich" platform?
They public in general may not know the specifics, but they can see with their eyes that the rich have gotten disproportionally richer in the last decade or so, while their incomes have remained relatively static. Here is $2.6T that didnt, and wont go to the people who paid into the SS system... because it is in the pockets of those who made the war possible.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Jan 11, 2013 7:09:15 GMT -6
If you want to know how much your regular payroll taxes went up, multiply the gross x 2%. It's that simple. The employee part of Social Security went from 5.65% to 7.65%. For those in the higher brackets, it gets a little more complicated and expensive, but the 2% applies to most taxpayers. I do not see why it is more expensive for the higher tax brackets. After the cap the SS rate goes to 0. Unless you are referring to the uncapped Medicare portion of the tax.
|
|