Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’

Thursday, June 23, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

 

[InTheLight]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’

Thursday, June 23, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

<Sigh> So much misinformation and disinformation packed into one article I scarcely know where to start. But here goes...

1. Geithner NEVER said "taxes on small businesses must rise so government doesn't shrink." That statement is a total fabrication, a paraphrase of statements made by Geithner and Rep. Renee Ellmers.

2. Geithner did say that the administration wants to increase taxes on INDIVIDUALS earning more than $250,000 a year. This is not news, this has been a stated objective of the Obama administration since he ran for President starting in 2007.

Here are the facts:

Rep. Ellmers is correct in saying that small businesses create 68% of all jobs in the U.S.

Treasury Sec. Geithner is also correct in saying that only 3% of business owners would be affected by increasing taxes on those making over $250,000.

Therefore the real question is this: How many small business owners making over $250,000, whose income flows through their business to their personal income statements would be affected? Answer: 3%

In other words, 65% of small businesses won't be affected by the proposed tax changes.

Now, with that said, as a conservative I oppose the administrations plan to raise taxes on people making $250,000 or more. But I just can't stand the misinformation that the right puts out there. This article is a prime example of it.

 

[mandym]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/geithner-taxes-small-business-must-rise

Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’

Thursday, June 23, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

Understanding that the article is right on target this is no surprise that Obama wants to maintain a big government. And it is shameful

 

[carpro]

<Sigh> So much misinformation and disinformation packed into one article I scarcely know where to start. But here goes...

1. Geithner NEVER said "taxes on small businesses must rise so government doesn't shrink." That statement is a total fabrication, a paraphrase of statements made by Geithner and Rep. Renee Ellmers.

Of course not. It's a summation of what he did say in different statements.

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

Only a fool would deny that the goal of the Obama Administration is to increase taxes and to grow the government. They have no intention whatsoever of cutting spending.

 

[InTheLight]

Of course not. It's a summation of what he did say in different statements.

From the article:

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

Wrong, Geithner never said "including small businesses". Let's make our case honestly without resorting to putting words in people's mouths.

Only a fool would deny that the goal of the Obama Administration is to increase taxes and to grow the government. They have no intention whatsoever of cutting spending.

You'll get no argument from me on this.

 

[carpro]

From the article:

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

Wrong, Geithner never said "including small businesses". Let's make our case honestly without resorting to putting words in people's mouths.

More accurate summation.

You're splitting hairs just for the sake of argument. It's easy to check quotation marks in the article for direct quotes. I suggest you do so and quit belaboring the obvious.

It goes without saying that a tax increase for those earning over 250,000 has to include many small business owners.

Since he didn't exclude them , they are included.

 

[billwald]

Agree that 250K is to low. Raise the marginal taxes at $500K. Two people with good union jobs AND lots of OT can earn $250K. Seattle police officers or Snohomish County PUD linemen, for example.

 

[InTheLight]

It goes without saying that a tax increase for those earning over 250,000 has to include many small business owners.

Since he didn't exclude them , they are included.

Yes, 3% of small business owners. Three per cent.

 

[Robert Snow]

Now, with that said, as a conservative I oppose the administrations plan to raise taxes on people making $250,000 or more. But I just can't stand the misinformation that the right puts out there. This article is a prime example of it.

As you can see, Carpro and his followers don't care if the article is correct or not, as long as it criticizes President Obama.

 

[carpro]

As you can see, Carpro and his followers don't care if the article is correct or not, as long as it criticizes President Obama.

The article is 100% correct. There are no inaccuracies.

 

[carpro]

Yes, 3% of small business owners. Three per cent.

Doesn't matter.

The statement in the article is factual and your argument, until now, has been that it's not.

BTW Just something to think about.

How many exactly is 3%, considering 99.7% of all employer firms are considered small businesses?

Those 3% provide the majority of the jobs generated by small businesses.

Most small business owners are taxed on profit, not take home. If an owner decides to leave $100,000 in his business to grow it or protect it, they are still taxed on it. Punishing successful business owners for being successful and good managers will inhibit the growth of jobs , their businesses and the economy.

 

[InTheLight]

How many exactly is 3%, considering 99.7% of all employer firms are considered small businesses?

Those 3% provide the majority of the jobs generated by small businesses.


Most small business owners are taxed on profit, not take home.

All three of these statements are false.

 

[hillclimber1]

“No, that's right. I agree with that,” said Geithner. “But just to put it in perspective, it's important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they've been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that's balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

No argument from me thus far..

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

“We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Wow, now that is convoluted reasoning.

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you'd be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.

And there we have it.. The convoluted PHILOSOPHICAL reasoning for raising taxes instead of cutting expenditures.. That is the mantra of the left that must be challenged.

At least that was what stood out to me.

 

[carpro]

All three of these statements are false.

Put up or shut up.

 

[billwald]

>Most small business owners are taxed on profit, not take home

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=96405,00.html

The majority of businesses are s-corps. S-corps pay no taxes. All profits and losses are passed through to the stockholders.

 

[carpro]

>Most small business owners are taxed on profit, not take home

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=96405,00.html

The majority of businesses are s-corps. S-corps pay no taxes. All profits and losses are passed through to the stockholders.

Proof of exactly nothing.

 

[InTheLight]

Put up or shut up.

You start. Prove that 99.7% of all employer firms are small businesses.

 

[mandym]

In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.

Source:Office of Advocacy estimates based on data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, and trends from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics.


http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24

 

[InTheLight]

In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.

Source:Office of Advocacy estimates based on data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, and trends from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labour Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics.


http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24

So you think that firms with 400-500 employees is a small business? That would be news to me. Also, when talking about raising taxes on small business owners that earn more than $250,000, the discussion is about S-corp or sole proprietorship owners, not C-corp owners. The discussion by definition must be about 'pass-through' income entities. Typically, these types of businesses are lawyers, doctors, accountants, plumbers, etc. and not big on employing people.

 

[mandym]

So you think that firms with 400-500 employees is a small business? That would be news to me. Also, when talking about raising taxes on small business owners that earn more than $250,000, the discussion is about S-corp or sole proprietorship owners, not C-corp owners. The discussion by definition must be about 'pass-through' income entities. Typically, these types of businesses are lawyers, doctors, accountants, plumbers, etc. and not big on employing people.

Regardless of whether or not I do the Small Business Association does.