Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dem candidates balk at ending tax cuts for rich

Sam Stein digs through the internals of the new CNN poll and finds that support for letting the tax cuts for the rich expire has strong support among virtually all voting blocs. Strikingly, only 50 percent of Republicans support keeping the tax cuts for the rich.

And yet, here and there around the country, we're starting to see more Dem Senate candidates come out against letting them expire. Robin Carhahan, the candidate in Missouri, came out for extending them yesterday, arguing that now's not the time to raise taxes. Jack Conway, who's running in Kentucky, also came out against letting them expire for the same reason.

Brad Ellsworth, the Senate candidate in Indiana, favors keeping all the Bush tax cuts. And a spokesperson for Charlie Melancon, the candidate in Louisiana, tells me Melancon favors extending them, including the tax cuts for the wealthy.

The dynamic is an interesting one. The Democratic leadership in the Senate is set to stage a big push this fall for letting the tax cuts for the rich expire -- and Dems intend to make this argument a centerpiece of their broader case against Republicans. Yet a number of leading Dem Senate candidates are not on board with the leadership on this issue.

Clearly, Dem candidates in red states are concluding that they can't win an argument over ending tax cuts for the rich, because Republicans will too easily portray it as a tax hike. And this is one of the issues that individual candidates may use to achieve separation from the Dem leadership.

What I'm really curious to know is how this issue polls in these individual red states. Interestingly, the internals of the CNN poll show support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire in all regions of the country except the south. It's supported by 56 percent in the northeast, 54 percent in the midwest, 53 percent in the west -- and only 43 percent in the south. So it's unclear whether this is really a losing issue for Dems, even in certain red states.

If you've seen signs of other Dem candidates taking a position, please let me know. This is going to be a very interesting dynamic to track as the debate over the tax cuts heats up this fall, and as more Dem candidates take a stand on them one way or the other.

UPDATE, 5:04 p.m.: Jeff Giertz, a spokesman for Melancon, tells me Melancon favors extending the Bush tax cuts -- including the tax cuts for the wealthy. So that's one more.

UPDATE, 6:29 p.m.: I noted wrongly above that Melancon had not yet taken a position on the Bush tax cuts; in fact, his spokesman just wanted to verify his position before getting back to me. I've edited the above to correct.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 20, 2010; 4:13 PM ET
Categories:  Senate Dems , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: VIDEO surfaces of Ron Johnson blaming climate change on "sunspot activity"
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Any politician talking about expanding tax cuts for the middle class? Anybody? Bueller?

It seems like a vote winner. Let the tax cuts for the rich expire while simultaneously giving everybody who makes under $250k a big fat tax break. I can imagine a majority of Democratic voters support extending tax cuts for the rich, but would probably respond favorably to a tax cut for themselves.

Surely, I must be missing something.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

* I can't imagine that a majority of Democratic voters support extending tax cuts for the rich . . . I should say. But surely, with the middle-class hurting, they'd see more money in their paycheck as a net-positive and a good thing. But neither party seems to be interested in going that direction.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of thing that stops me from joining the Democratic Party.

Grow a freakin' spine!

Posted by: nisleib | August 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Can you say "tax cuts for the rich" ten times fast? BTW, you were doing a great job on the propaganda front right up until the last sentence when you mistakenly said "tax cuts" instead of "tax cuts for the rich". Tsk, tsk. Work on it.

Also, I suggest in the future you just skip the spaces and simply make it taxcutsfortherich. Definitely more efficient. Or perhaps if that is not subtle enough you can refer to the takefromthepoorandgivetothedirtyrottengreedybastards debate. That's the ticket.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer isn't dodging anything but he did call you a sycophant and a fool today. I bet you didn't like that. You deserved it though after your mosque debacle.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 20, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Let the tax cuts for the rich expire while simultaneously giving everybody who makes under $250k a big fat tax break"

There was a tax break for the Middle Class in the Stimulus bill (that I'm sure you opposed).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Let the tax cuts for the rich..."

Et tu, Brute?

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

This poll is of adults. I think political decisions are generally driven by "likely voter" results. Why, this late in the cycle, do you think CNN is doing an "adults" poll versus the "likely voter" model?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | August 20, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Scott, obviously, the debate in the Senate this fall is over the broader issue of the "tax cuts," not just the "tax cuts for the rich."

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 20, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Other Dems who are in doubt:

Connolly: “I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rates where they are,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman Democrat from Virginia.

"Connolly said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody."

Conrad: "...Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), a senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he could support a short-term extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners.

"...My reaction would be don’t cut spending, don’t raise taxes and that would mean on anyone,” he said."

Bright: "Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery.

“I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”

And some other Dems want to shield the rich in *certain* sections of the country:

"Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from Manhattan, has proposed legislation that would provide adjustments in income tax rates to reflect regional costs of living.

"The legislation is sponsored by five Democrats representing New York City, its suburbs and Long Island where living standards and incomes are high.

"They are Reps. Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/110251-tax-hikes-may-wait

Posted by: sbj3 | August 20, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Those Dems who are against this need to be asked to explain how they can claim it's not a good time to raise taxes on anyone when this was, one, the Republicans sunset date and two, if keeping those tax cuts for the wealthy will add 35 billion dollars to the deficit next year, how the hell is that a good thing. Finally, they need to explain why they can't seem to separate the gains of keeping the cuts for the lower and middle class which will stimulate the economy vs keeping them for the rich which doesn't. They've had these tax cuts since 2001 and 2003 and just how much have the rich contributed to job growth in the private sector? They didn't. They lost 7 million jobs over that period which is perhaps the best argument of all for letting theirs expire!

Posted by: roxsteady | August 20, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This debate over taxes is just surreal.

The Republicans want to balance the budget by giving Paris Hilton a tax break.

The Democrats are afraid of their own shadows, and therefore tend to say nothing.

Meanwhile taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years! We cut taxes in a time of war and then we act surprised when the economy falls off a cliff and the national debt balloons.

And now that the economy has cratered what do the Republicans want to do? They want to give more tax cuts to the super rich. We tried that, it led us to this predicament, and you want more of the same?

Posted by: nisleib | August 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Troll: these adults aren't voting on anything. it's an issue poll. no?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

If tax cuts were so important, why did they create them with an expiration?

Why didn't they make them permanent?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I will say this. Reading the comments here give me hope. Many of you are very well informed. I also suspect that judging by the polling, you're not alone in this. The only people who seem willfully ignorant on this are the ususal suspects. The South wich is the only place where the GOP is viewed favorably. Sadly, these people are living up to their sterotype!

Posted by: roxsteady | August 20, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

I agree it's an "issues poll", however, what's more important to a politician desiring re-election? All adults or likely voters? What I'm saying is that politicians tend to want to please, or at least avoiding offending, those that vote. One explanation for incumbent Dems not wanting to repeal the tax cuts is that the "likely voter" model(s) show a majority of likely voters support some, if not all the tax cuts. Thus, incumbent Dems support would be an attempt to gain re-election. Adult samples are irrelevant to re-election in a tight race.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | August 20, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "There was a tax break for the Middle Class in the Stimulus bill (that I'm sure you opposed)."

I mean straight forward, old school, more-money-in-the-paycheck-for-everybody kind of tax cuts, and big ones, particularly without an expiration date.

That being said, it's interesting that you're sure I opposed the stimulus bill. I was neither for nor against, because, with stimulus, the devil is in the details. And I was not familiar with all the details at the time. Indeed, I hoped it would be more WPA--I liked all the talk of shovel-ready jobs--than perhaps it turned out to be. But the tax breaks were, in my opinion, very narrow and not very deep.

@ScottC3: "'Let the tax cuts for the rich...' Et tu, Brute?"

I'm not committing to anything, but some serious tax cuts for the middle class might have more of an economic stimulative effect than maintaining tax cuts for the rich.

I don't think I shared my plan for a wealth tax here before, but see what you think about this: a confiscatory tax on all personal wealth (i.e., increase in net worth) on politicians, elected and appointed, amassed after they make it to DC. So if a senator is elected with $200k in the bank, and ends up with $14 million in the bank, all that newly acquired wealth is taxed at tremendously confiscatory rates. Not as income, but taxing the networth of the individual politician as a form of property tax.

I don't object to a more progressive tax structure, so that folks who make a million bucks a year pay 1% more in taxes, and folks who make 5 million pay 2% more in taxes, and so on. It would make sense to me that folks who earn $10 million a year could pay 2 or 3% more in taxes than folks who make $500,000.

I don't object to trying various tax structures--including cutting capital gains and corporate taxes--to stimulate the economy and increase government revenue. I was all for the Bush tax cuts, but they clearly don't have the sustained effect on the economy that I would have hoped. We'd be better off now if they had.

So perhaps corporate tax cuts, or radically cutting taxes on the middle class (not just enough to technically meet a campaign promise) would be a better strategy, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on folks making over $250k would be a reasonable tradeoff for that. In the end, if the economy was better stimulated with more money in the middle class, everybody would benefit, including the rich. And the very rich.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@roxsteady: I live in the South. Have all my life. We're really not as bad as you think. Or have been lead to believe. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"So it's unclear whether this is really a losing issue for Dems, even in certain red states."

So your basing this on one poll but take a look at question #27 in the most recent NBC/WSJ poll.

71% support extending all the cuts for one additional year.

Only 46% support eliminating the cuts for those over 250K 51% oppose.

The bottom line is that you can make a poll come out with any result you want. But the fact that Dems are coming out against raising them tells you more than any poll can.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 20, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

REPUBLICAN QUESTION TIME!

Question: My dog got hit by a truck, what should I do?

Republican Answer: Give your dog a tax cut.

Question: My girlfriend won’t shower and her stench is scaring my dog, what should I do?

Republican Answer: Give your girlfriend a tax cut

Question: 10 armed men broke into my house and demanded I hand over my stuffed panda, what should I do?

Republican Answer: Give the armed men, and you stuffed panda, a tax cut.

Question: My mother in law has irritable bowel syndrome and keeps messing in my kitchen, what should I do?

Republican Answer: Give your mother in law a tax cut

Question: Which way is up?

Republican Answer: Give up a tax cut

Posted by: nisleib | August 20, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Reagan cabinet member on the current GOP's economic policy: "This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

What we have to look forward to when the Republicans once again dupe the country into voting them into office over nonsense like mosques in NYC and how much of a Christian Obama appears to be.

Posted by: spongekill | August 20, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I dont want to say that I know of "likely voter" models showing a majority supporting keeping the tax cuts, because I do not know if they exist, and if they did, do they correlate to each individual states electorate. What I am saying is that the "likely voters" in states where Dem Senators are wobbly on repealing the tax cuts may support the keeping of tax cuts. I'm offering an explanation of behavior.

I'll also say that this close to an election, "adult" model polls just drive news, not policy. It's the media generating news rather than reporting on it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | August 20, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Your right they're not voting, which is why Robin Carnahan doesn't care what they think.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | August 20, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Why didn't they make them permanent?"

Because they were so unpopular -- even in the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Congress at the time -- that they could only pass the tax cuts through Reconciliation.

And any bill passed through Reconciliation has an automatic built-in 10 year sunset.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

mike: If tax cuts were so important, why did they create them with an expiration?
Why didn't they make them permanent?

Because they had to use the budget reconciliation process...you know.."jam them through." Budget rec has a sunset provision.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This John Stewart clip should be watched by 300 million Americans.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

John Stewart is our modern day Walter Cronkite. Seriously, he's great.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 20, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

the tax structure is only one piece of the puzzle. Among the others is the new regulatory burden that congress has laid on the American people.

It will take a long time for the unelected, unvetted, unfireable federal bureaux to develop the necessary CFR updates to, as Dingell said, "Control the people". Who knows what surprises are in HCR or Dodd the crook's bill?

Not raising taxes will help, to be sure. But the regulatory impact of the obama agenda should scare the spit out of business people. Getting that under control can only improve our chances going forward.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Rich people are lucky. Somehow they've convinced the other 95% of Republicans to fight for their tax cuts.

They must be so thankful!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 20, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Not too surprised about Melancon. The guy is basically running as Vitter sans prostitutes.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 20, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Mike - The true irony is that Rich people consider poor people lucky because they don't pay much in federal income tax.

If I make 100K a year and have an effective tax rate of 30%, my take home is 70k. (Yes, I realize it is more complicated than that.) Somehow, for some of these rightwing know-nothings, it is better to bring home nothing than it is to bring home 70K.

I find the right's bed wetting over taxes a cause of constant amusement. They complain about taxes incessantly, yet insist the government do everything. Newsflash, regardless of who fixes the highways it will cost money. And if you mention cutting military expenditures (which account for something like 40% of all military spending in the world) you are a pinko commie.

They want their cake, but they want to eat it too. And that darn cake best come with a fully loaded gun!

Posted by: nisleib | August 20, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"the tax breaks were, in my opinion, very narrow and not very deep."

Here is the impact of the tax cuts and credits in the stimulus:

INCOME -- SAVINGS -- REDUCTION IN TAXES

Under $19K -- $476 -- -95%
$19K-$38K -- $652 -- -22%
$38K-$66K -- $781 -- -9%
$66K-$112K -- $1,301 -- -7.5%
$112K-$161K -- $2,549 -- -8.3%
$161K-$227K -- $3,883 -- -8.3%
$227K-$603K -- $5,133 -- -5.7%
$2.8M plus -- $39,350 -- -1.4%

That's pretty broad and deep, not sure what you would have preferred.

To make matters worse for your "opinion," Obama wanted the Making Work Pay credit to be $500 not $400, but the REPUBLICAN PARTY -- including all three of your Senators/Reps -- complained so much about the overall cost of the bill that they slashed money for the Middle Class.

Heckuva job, Kevin.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh. GOP American Except-them-ism is causing another rift.

"Black Republicans tell John Avlon that Sarah Palin's tweet in defense of Dr. Laura was ridiculous and indefensible—and that she may be "no longer fit to lead."

Sarah Palin’s post-VP nominee career has so far benefitted from bomb-throwing. The process follows a tight script—a crude, semi-calculated comment is shot into the middle of a political debate via Facebook or Twitter. It gains national attention. Liberals are outraged. Conservatives rush to her defense. Sarah Palin dominates a news cycle and becomes more beloved by her base.

But by unnecessarily rushing to the defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger—after she dropped the N-bomb 11 times and told the caller “don’t marry outside of your race”—Sarah Palin might finally have gone too far and picked a fight she cannot win."


The few black conservative candidates, columnists, and media figures—who represent the GOP’s only hope for reclaiming the legacy of Lincoln and, with it, long-term demographic relevance—are not amused. They’re now saying what many in the GOP increasingly believe: Sarah Palin is not fit to be a serious leader of the Republican Party.

I spoke to Michel Faulkner, the former NFL player and Harlem preacher challenging Charlie Rangel for a House seat, and he was unsparing in his criticism: “Why Sarah Palin feels she needs to join in to Dr. Laura’s personal meltdown is beyond me. She’s sounding like she just likes to hear her own voice—and the voice that she has is no longer credible. It says that a leading voice among conservatives has joined the ranks of the entertainers—trying to shock us each day with more and more outlandish commentary. And at that moment that person is no longer fit to lead.”

“The constitutional stuff she’s saying doesn’t even make any sense,” Faulkner said. “She doesn’t know what real shackles are… But ‘don’t retreat, reload?’ Lady, are you kidding me? That is scary language in anyone’s terminology. Sarah Palin scares me.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-20/sarah-palins-dr-laura-tweet-black-republicans-react/full/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

more from the above link:

“When I first heard this stuff, what came across was an extremely lame white chick trying to school this other woman about the N-word. … So I’m certainly not one to try and defend Dr. Laura. She has a history of being a negative and nasty persona. But Sarah Palin’s comments? Well, this is confusing stuff coming out of a woman who would have been the vice president if McCain had won. … Palin seems to be as equally detached from the real world where people operate and where race is a really volatile topic.”

“First Amendment rights? Of course. But [Dr. Laura] wasn’t fired—she decided to drop her show. So I’m not exactly understanding what Sarah Palin’s understanding of the Constitution is here. And it isn’t completely out of character, which is very unfortunate. She keeps dropping this bizarre stuff,” Hicks said. “It says this woman really has no larger vision of what she is trying to do in a political sense—there’s a pretty narrow intellect at work here ... Attempting to defend the indefensible is just kind of insulting.”

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/happy_hour_roundup_76.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 20, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else miss the days when the Democrats would actually fight to build up the middle class?

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 20, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"I'm not committing to anything, but some serious tax cuts for the middle class might have more of an economic stimulative effect than maintaining tax cuts for the rich."

I'm all for tax cuts for the poor, the middle class, for everyone.

What I was objecting to was the loaded phrase "for the rich". Is a single income family of 5 making $260k living New York City "rich" whereas a single man making $200k living in High Point, North Carolina not "rich"? "Taxcutsfortherich" is pure political propaganda designed to tilt the terms of the debate before it starts.

BTW, I like your plan for taxing politicians as a special class.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 20, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"What I'm really curious to know is how this issue polls in these individual red states..."
----------------------------------------------

FWIW, having grown up in southern Indiana, it's been my observation that in terms of attitudes and political behavior it's not a bad rule of thumb to regard anything below I-70 as the south. That always seemed true of southern IN, OH and IL and I'd bet it works fine for MO as well.

Bear in mind also that the midwestern numbers are going to be a little skewed toward the great lakes industrial belt, only a small corner of which falls in Indiana and none of which is in MO. There are around 8 million people in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet division of the Chicago MSA (excluding the IN and WI portions) and another 4.4 million in the Detroit metro area. The entire population of the state of Indiana is 6.5 million and Missouri is a tad under 6. The midwestern border states also have that scandinavian thing going on and tend to be more liberal than points farther south

So anyway, I-70 runs through Indianapolis and everything north of there is pretty much corn fields until you get to the Calumet valley industrial region. I would therefore tend to look more at the southern piece of that CNN poll in trying to figure out Ellsworth and probably Carnahan as well. Or maybe split the difference between the midwestern and southern numbers.

But I really think Ellsworth is likely in for a butt-kicking anyway, regardless of what he may say about taxes. Bayh probably would have had no trouble holding that seat but Democrats generally have a high hill to climb in any statewide race there and this year, in an open seat race, that's going to be more like a cliff wall.

Posted by: CalD | August 20, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"American Except-them-ism"

Nice one, Sue.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 20, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"American Except-them-ism"

wbg, please use it liberally! :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 20, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"American Except-them-ism"

That is classic, Sue. Meant to say something on the other thread :)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 20, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Since the tax cuts are set to expire on January 1st, 2011, it really does NOT matter what anybody who is currently NOT in Congress but is running for it thinks.

It is really up to the Congress of 2010 who will decide the taxes starting Jan 1st 2011.

Obama isn't going to sign a bill that makes the tax cuts for the rich permanent. That isn't going to happen.

The bill that will be coming forward will be one of extending tax cuts for the middle class. There may be an amendent to extend tax cuts for the rich but that won't get 60 votes in the Senate.

I just don't see tax cuts for the rich being extended past Jan 1st 2011 unless there is a compromise to extend it for a year and then that's it or something.

Posted by: maritza1 | August 20, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the other interesting part of this dynamic is that a vote is required to actually extend the tax cuts and the action has to be taken during the term of the current Congress. Presumably, 41 Democrats are enough to block the extention in the Senate. It is also likely that the Republicans will try to block any extention that does not include all of the tax cuts. In the case, that the extention does not happen this year, the choice next year would be a new tax bill that might open some new can of worms.

Posted by: dnjake | August 20, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you are absolutely an ignorant leftist idiot. 70%+ of employed people work for small businesses. Since you are clueless, and spend your days fantasizing about the President's poster over your bed, I will try and teach you a bit on a subject you habitually ignore: reality. Most delusional people like you, believe small business pertains exclusively to a mom and pops store. In reality, per the IRS code a small business is a business with 500 or less full time employees, not including executives, upper management or any individuals perform services for the company who are subcontracted from another firm.

Now that even someone as delirious as you sees how the majority of Americans are employed by small businesses, it is time to give you a quick tax lesson. The vast majority of small businesses file as sole proprietorships to avoid corporate taxes. Next, consider this example: You get a $300,000 bank loan, which you add to your savings and but open a Starbucks. After all is said and done, you hire 6 people for $2000 per month and 2 managers for $4,000 for 2 managers, Your rent, utilities, equipment lease expenses and supplies comes to $15,000 per month. Therefore, you annual gross expenses without drawing one penny in salary for yourself are: $144,000 + $96,000 + $180,000 = $420,000.

Earth to Greg, so in our example, your business must gross $420,000 per year, plus your salary, just to break even. Since Obama (your idol, fantasy lover and President) has categorized "Rich people" as anyone earning $200,000 or $250,000 per year or above (depending on which time of the many times Obama broached the topic during his continuous campaign).
Therefore Greg, if your Starbucks has a bad year and only grosses $250,000 total, according to Obama (filing as an individual) you will be considered a "Rich Person" even though you lost $170,000!
Greg, now try hard to imagine you are a regular human being in the really world. Do you really believe that increasing the tax rates on small business (from the rates they have been taxed since 2003), which are simultaneously being saddled with new Obamacare tax & expense increases, is going to increase the likelihood that more risks will be taken and that businesses will expand and hire more people than they world without such a tax increase?. Remember, small business constitutes 70% of American’s job market. 75%-85% of small businesses file as an individual to avoid corporate taxes.

Posted by: Cris1 | August 21, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Who would be against renewing The Bush Tax Cuts?

After all, they did create millions of new jobs.

That is why, at the end of 2008, unemployment figures were so low, almost allf unemployment offices around the country were being phased out.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone be against renewing The Bush Tax Cuts?

After all, they did create millions of new jobs.

That is why, at the end of 2008, unemployment figures were so low, almost all unemployment offices around the country were being phased out.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

It sheer ignorance of the people commending on here is astounding! Kevin_Willis you are priceless! What planet are you commenting from? Have you no shame? It is incredible that you can comment on so many different topics of which you know nothing about. Look at who will be effected by the expiration of the 2003 tax cuts. The lowest person on the totem polls taxes go up from 10% to 15%. i'm sorry, is someone making $20K per year rich?
Read my other post, which i posted as a service to educate dimwits, who lack any real world experience.

Posted by: Cris1 | August 21, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"Totem Polls"?

"Commending on here"?

"Look at who will be effected by"?


Is that you Sarah, posting to refudiate Kevin?


Posted by: Liam-still | August 21, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The rich have the tax cuts now and are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with them but racking up cash and shuffling it around at the top. I'm willing to let my pittance expire to have their extavagant cuts expire if that's what it takes.

Posted by: wd1214 | August 22, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is hypocritical, supports racist, misinterprets Constitution and is clinically diagnosed as retarded...this surprising anyone yet?

Read this article and enjoy a completely fresh interpretation of the First Amendment, Palin-style!

VERY FUNNY

http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2826

Posted by: eye95 | August 22, 2010 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Not raising taxes will help, to be sure. But the regulatory impact of the obama agenda should scare the spit out of business people. Getting that under control can only improve our chances going forward.

Well said, and BP would certainly applaud this.

Posted by: bvision | August 22, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

@roxsteady and everyone else:

Tax Cuts don't add to the deficit, spending way more than you should ,adds to the deficit. I get what you're saying, but it's not how it works.

Posted by: sschultz0956 | August 25, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company