Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Boehner concedes only three percent of small businesses affected by extending tax cuts

As you know, John Boehner made big news yesterday on CBS when he seemed to allow that he would support it if Dems held a vote on whether to extend just the tax cuts of those who make less than $250,000.

And that's certainly interesting. But there's another key claim Boehner made that also deserves some attention: He seemed to allow that the income of only three percent of small business people would be impacted if the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

I hear Dems are getting ready to jump on this part of Boehner's interview. They're going to argue that it undercuts the claim of many Republicans that extending the tax cuts for the rich would have an adverse impact on many small businesses, creating widespread uncertainty for them.

In the exchange, Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Boehner to respond to a recent report by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation finding the three percent figure. And then...

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you quarrel with that figure? Is that a right figure or a wrong figure?

BOEHNER: Well, it may be three percent, but it's half of small business income. Because, obviously, the top three percent have half of the gross income for those companies that we would term small businesses. And this is why you don't want to punish these people at a time when you have a weak economy.

Boehner's camp will argue that this isn't a concession at all. After all, he reiterated the claim that half of small business income will be impacted, creating a drag on investment and innovation in a weak economy.

But Dems will counter that this only proves their point -- most of the small business income that would be impacted by ending the tax cuts for the rich is concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of people. Look for this to become part of the Dem argument -- and part of the ongoing White House and Dem offensive against Boehner -- as the skirmish over the tax cuts heats up.

UPDATE, 11:16 a.m.: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel responds without directly addressing the three percent figure:

"There is no argument that the President's plan would raise taxes on half of the small business income in the United States, according to the non-partisan Joint Tax Committee. Why do Washington Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone -- especially small businesses -- in a struggling economy? If Speaker Pelosi allows a fair debate and vote in the House, we're confident that our plan to stop all of the tax hikes would prevail."

UPDATE, 11:24 a.m.: DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan unloads:

"Now that Boehner admits at least 97% of small business won't be affected if the Bush tax cuts expire, we can put an end to the canard that John Boehner and Republicans are fighting to extend tax breaks for anyone but super-rich individuals. And while Republicans are fighting for tax cuts that they now admit won't help small business they are holding hostage a small business jobs bill that actually provides significant tax benefits for most small businesses. This is the same kind of backward thinking and perverse priorities that Republicans promoted when they were in power and will put back into place if handed back the keys to Congress."

By Greg Sargent  |  September 13, 2010; 10:42 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: "The Obama tax cuts for the middle class"

Comments

The idea that all hell will break loose if 3% of "small" business owners have to pay a tiny fraction higher in taxes is absolutely ludicrous on its face.

Some might say "factual insanity".

Only 3 out of 100 small biz owners would have to pay a SLIGHTLY HIGHER rate.

Almost 10 out of 10 small business owners will NOT be affected by a tax increase for those earning 250k+.

The GOP is up against a wall.

Trapped like RATS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

How does the "skirmish over the tax cuts" heat up after Boner's concession? Obama won, now all he has to do is convince Senate Democrats...

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I agree with what someone said on the morning round-up.

Boehner knows everything will die in the Senate.

McConnell has zero interest in being a sensible person. He's all political and zero substance.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

But Obama HATES Small Biz right?

Is that why the GOP has stalled a SMALL BUSINESS BILL since FRIGGING JUNE?!?!?!

ABC News (h/t political wire):

"Here's the to-do list: the $30 billion small business bill that's been stalled since June, the debate over the Bush tax cuts, that small matter of funding the government, the food safety bill that's been languishing in the Senate for a whopping 15 months -- a lag that caused a stir during the recent egg recall, FAA authorization, DOD authorization that includes the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, and the tax extenders package. Of course, it's a safe bet that senators won't get all that done in the next four weeks, but a few issues will likely come up: extending government funding through the end of the year, debating the Bush tax cuts, and resolving the small business bill."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/back-to-the-morass-congress-returns-to-work.html

The GOP is holding 97% of small bizs hostage while they play partisan games.

Then they complain that Obama isn't doing enough to create jobs.

It is wholly unacceptable.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Attention All TeaBaggers:

Minority House Leader; John Boehner(R),says he would Raise Tax Rates!!!

(snark alert)

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Great post btw Greg, you nailed this one imho. Thx!

It seems every time the GOP attempts to respond seriously on an issue, and not with callous disregard to the truth, they just open themselves up to MORE questions and MORE criticism about the veracity and intellectual honesty of their positions.

Keep hammering them on this and the small biz efforts, PLEASE!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

So, if after the elections, Republicans hold a smaller majority than Dems did in this session of Congress, how is that to be interpreted?

This was a much smaller repudiation of Democratic politics than there was Republican politics. In other words, Republican corruption and irrationality mobilized Americans much more that the conservative commentators meme of Democratic over-reach.

I'm looking forward to Republicans blowing their opportunities in NV, NH, DE, FL and possibly AK and KY. Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The top 3% of small businesses have half of the small business income?

It's worse than I thought.

Posted by: benintn | September 13, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm sitting at a computer in downtown Albuquerque and came across this. Also, I read somewhere this morning from an IRS link that only 1.9% of filers with small business income are in the top two income tax brackets.

See y'all later.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"History Shows Businesses Can Prosper at Tax Rate Slated for 2011

History refutes the notion that small businesses would be unable to thrive under a 39.6 percent tax rate. Small businesses do not need an exemption from that rate to prosper.

During the 1990s, when the top tax rates were at the levels to which they are slated to return in 2011, small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent — or 756,000 jobs — per year. In contrast, between 2001 and 2006, when tax rates were lower as a result of the 2001 tax law, small business employment rose at only a 1.0 percent annual rate (367,000 jobs per year) — less than half as much.

In short, the 1990s tax rates did not deter a robust, job-creating economic expansion, and the lower tax rates after 2001 did not prevent a recovery that proved very disappointing in generating job growth.a"

(a. Average annual small business job growth (firms with 20-499 employees), calculations based on data from the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Census Bureau.)

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3251

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Boehner's "3% of small businesses" are law firms and hedge funds. That's a fact, Jack.

Posted by: aprilglaspie | September 13, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Attention President Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Pelosi.

Now is the perfect time to pass a quick clean bill that will Outlaw the undermining of Social Security.

Retirees and those nearing retirement need to feel confident, that Social Security will always be there, for them and the following generations.

Pass a Patriotic Social Security Defense Bill now. Put Republicans on the spot, to either vote for or against Protecting Social Security from The Wall St. Casino Banksters.

Do it now. This will be a big winner with retirees, and show that we are always on their side.

The bill should not deal with the funding issue, since we can not go into that, until the Presidential Commission submits it's report.

But we can etch in stone now, that our Social Security compact with retirees, will not be chiseled away, just to provide an additional cash stream for The Wall St. Casino Banksters to Gamble with.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

A few things come to mind:

1) What Bohner considers a "small business" and what everyone else considers a "small business" have little in common.

2) Tax is assessed on profits, not revenue. If a "small business" really wants to lower it's (and by "it" I mean the owners of the small business, because most small businesses are flow through entities (S Corps, LLCs, LPs, etc.)) tax burden it can invest in assets or hire more workers. By hiring more people and investing in assets (many of which are fully deductible in the year of purchase, depending on many variables of course,) you lower your profits and thereby lower your taxes.

3) If you admit that the overall costs of the government are not being met by the current tax structure than the assumption that eventually taxes will have to go up is unavoidable. That being the case by keeping taxes at their current unsustainably low rate we are incentivizing "small business owners" to NOT invest and NOT hire more people until taxes go up. Why? Because every dollar they can take home today will be worth more than every dollar they will bring home after taxes go up. Therefore, in some ways, today's current tax structure is actually hurting the unemployment figures.

Posted by: nisleib | September 13, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"BOEHNER: Well, it may be three percent, but it's half of small business income. Because, obviously, the top three percent have half of the gross income for those companies that we would term small businesses."

The statement is both nonsense and irrelevant. The taxes we are discussing are personal taxes, not corporate taxes; that is the irrelevant part. Further, companies pay taxes on net not gross income; that is the nonsense part.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 13, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA - well, the GOP argument essentially is that if a small business owner has to pay a couple more thousand in taxes on his income, he'll stop hiring people.

It's a stupid argument, no matter how you slice it.

Republicans have been pretending forever that people will forego making more money if their taxes go up. Reality says that if you approached someone making an average income ($50K a year) and said, "you can make over $250K a year, but if you do, you'll pay 3% more in taxes on every dollar over $250K you make", not one single person in a thousand would turn that down. According to Republican "logic", most people aren't rational and would forego earning an additional $200K because of the massive butthurt of paying taxes on it, which would *only* leave them with an additional $150K or so after taxes.

While many people are stupid, virtually none are this stupid, though Republicans somehow manage to convince their followers that they are.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The next thing Boehner will say is “My problem lies with reconciling my gross habits with my net income”.

Credit to Errol Flynn.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Attention President Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Pelosi.

This is the perfect time to apply the annual COLA, which is automatically applied to Social Security payouts, to The Minimum Wage Rates.

When Republicans are in charge, they block raising the rate, even if inflation over several years, has greatly devalued the existing rate.

This is the perfect time to push through a Minimum Wage Annual COLA adjustment fix. That would insure that those who have to subsist on the already meager hourly rate, would not ever again find their selves having to live off of less and less, as inflation takes it's toll on their hourly wage pittance,

COLA the minimum wage rate now, so that the poorest workers, will never again have to wait for Democrats to have enough power to raise the hourly rate.

A permanent solution for a decades old problem;

COLA the Minimum Wage Rate now.

Give struggling workers something to thank you for.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The Patriotic Protection Of Social Security From Republican Privateers, Act.


Attention President Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Pelosi.

Now is the perfect time to pass a quick clean bill that will Outlaw the undermining of Social Security.

Retirees and those nearing retirement need to feel confident, that Social Security will always be there, for them and the following generations.

Pass a Patriotic Social Security Defense Bill now. Put Republicans on the spot, to either vote for or against Protecting Social Security from The Wall St. Casino Banksters.

Do it now. This will be a big winner with retirees, and show that we are always on their side.

The bill should not deal with the funding issue, since we can not go into that, until the Presidential Commission submits it's report.

But we can etch in stone now, that our Social Security compact with retirees, will not be chiseled away, just to provide an additional cash stream for The Wall St. Casino Banksters to Gamble with.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Greg: You're doing good work here but why do I have a feeling of dread that any minute the Republicrats will undermine all Democratic efforts to capitalize on this political gift by Agent Orange? I bet the Blue Dogs are already getting the circular firing squad into position.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"I bet the Blue Dogs are already getting the circular firing squad into position."

Evan Bayh. Ben Nelson. I'm sure they're seeing the lobbyist $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ flowing bigtime.

Time to get to work on President Snowe, President Collins, President Brown.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Matheson, Nye, Bean and Peters argue that Obama and Pelosi are misjudging the impact increased taxes on high-end earners would have on the economic recovery.

"While those in the highest income brackets comprise only two to three percent of American taxpayers, economists estimate that they are responsible for 25 percent of national consumer spending. As 70 percent of our economy is driven by consumer spending, this is not the time to jeopardize further growth."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42042_Page3.html#ixzz0zQSGFG80

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Why do Washington Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone -- especially small businesses -- in a struggling economy?"

Ummmm...

Because Washington Republicans rammed through the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich -- DURING THE 2001 RECESSION -- that created a Net ZERO jobs and bankrupted the federal budget, perhaps?

Jeez. Is he flat-out ignorant or just a lying bastard (or *ahem* both)?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Why do Washington Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone -- especially small businesses -- in a struggling economy?"

It's so nice that the National Deficit disappeared itself. The GOP's War On Reality appears to be working.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

It looks like BOTH sides have decided to limit their downsides on this issue.


Obama doesn't need to look bad in another discussion about how bad his policies have been for hiring - Obama has been a DRAG on hiring ever since Wall Street starting thinking seriously about what would happen if Obama won - and started to "price" Obama in.


Boehner is doing great right now in the polls - he doesn't need the debate either.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A DEAL.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The democrats need to also explain that in that 3% are things like law offices, doctors, authors and many people who have to file as a small business but won't hire purely because of a tax cut. I doubt if true employers in that number equals 1%...

If I'm not mistaken, John McCain, Obama and most politicians are in that 3%.

Posted by: soapm | September 13, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

As soon as the Bush Tax Cuts for Deprived Billionaires went into effect, our Vegetable Garden started providing bumper crops, and our Neighbor's Psoriasis cleared up.

I am very worried, that if President Obama, applies post Colonial Kenyan principles, and lets Tax relief for Deprived Billionaires expire, our Vegetable Garden will provide a lower crop yield, and our neighbor's Psoriasis condition, will flair up, once more.

Signed: A Concerned TeaBagger In Provo.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Baye is retiring in January if you were unaware of that.

And as to the 3% of small businesses effected by increasing rates on the upper income folks, its also important to mention that $250,000 is excluded and that it only increases their "marginal rates".

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 13, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Only three percent of small businesses would be affected, but (allegedly) half of small business income, which is important if, like the GOP, you care more about the votes of dollars than the votes of people.

Posted by: jimeh | September 13, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Why don't you go back to the Fix and leave everyone else alone


Everyone has agreed to stop the fighting - so let's do it this way.


I saw your message on the Fix - you are encouraging the liberals to come over here - and that is why leichtman showed up.


We don't want a return to the constant nastiness here.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Senator Baye is retiring in January if you were unaware of that."

Yeah and he wants a 7-figure job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Dick Armey, establishment Republican AND TEA party leader:

""It's quite possible that John Boehner basically realizes that you simply can't get the Democrats emotionally prepared to deal with the fact that comprehensive continuation of the tax structure as we know it today after 10 years [of Bush cuts] is just."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/armey-backs-boehners-strategy-on-tax-cuts.php

It's no longer that tax cuts for the rich HELP THE ECONOMY.

Now they are "JUST".

It is a MORAL effort, not economic.

IDEOLOGICAL WANKERY in its purest form.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I saw your message on the Fix - you are encouraging the liberals to come over here - and that is why leichtman showed up.
-------------------------------------
Well, I didn't see your post over there. Guess you are banned?

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were the exec in charge of who posts on the Plum Line. Now, you want to get rid of leichtman and me? Anyone else?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

You know that Hans Christian Andersen cautionary tale, about the King who went around naked, but only one young boy, did not fall for the claim that he was wearing lovely new clothes:

The Empty Talking Heads, and Vapid Journalists, keep referring to The Tea Party as "a populist movement", without ever appearing to notice, that the Tea Party movement has been nominating only Anti-Populist candidates.

Of course; the truth is that the entire Tea Party Operation is merely a Republican Scam, mostly funded by a pair of Oil Industry Billionaires.

Tea Party, My Arse!

Can you say: A Bunch Of Stupid, Koch Suckers, Boys and Girls?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out, new emerging talking point: "Obama tax cuts for the middle class"...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_obama_tax_cuts_for_the_mid.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 13, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"And I return to the fundamental questions for the GOP:

How low should federal taxes be and what should the federal government do?"

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp ...

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I've said it before and I will say it again.


This mosque think flared up after the APRIL TIMES SQUARING BOMBING.


We have Obama down-playing all these terrorist incidents we have had over the past two years -


And yet, that Times Square situation was NOT good - it confirmed everyone's gut feeling that OBAMA IS OFF THE RESERVATION ON TERRORISM.


For some reason, the liberals are not thinking independently on this issue, and instead are blindly following Obama. Obama is weak on national security.

THE MOSQUE IS A WAR ISSUE - IT IS NOT A PEACETIME FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.


The rules in war are different than in peacetime - that is what Obama does not understand.


I don't know why Obama is making these mistakes - on the immigration issue - Why NOT let Arizona's law stand - just leave it - the ARIZONA LAW IS NO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ICE DOES.


On the terrorism cases, Obama should just drop this legalistic approach - and fight the war like it is a war.

(The ACLU is actually suing Obama - showing how silly the legalistic approach is to a war)


Obama is just showing such a lack of judgement - a lack of ability to lead the nation - a lack of everything needed for the job.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 13, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the deficit isn't taxes, it's spending. Maybe overall tax revenues go up some maybe down some. Who knows for sure. Compared to the size of the budget shortfall and current deficit it is pretty meaningless. Whether they raise taxes or lower them we will still be heading for some very bad times.

Posted by: peterg73 | September 13, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

In The Kingdom Of Blind Pundits........


You know that Hans Christian Andersen cautionary tale, about the King who went around naked, but only one young boy, did not fall for the claim that he was wearing lovely new clothes:

The Empty Talking Heads, and Vapid Journalists, keep referring to The Tea Party as "a populist movement", without ever appearing to notice, that the Tea Party movement has been nominating only Anti-Populist candidates.

Of course; the truth is that the entire Tea Party Operation is merely a Republican Scam, mostly funded by a pair of Oil Industry Billionaires.

Tea Party, My Arse!

Can you say: A Bunch Of Stupid, Koch Suckers, Boys and Girls?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with the deficit isn't taxes, it's spending"

Try to follow this simple equation:

Revenues (Taxes) minus Spending = Deficit

As one can plainly see, there are 2 variables in this equation, both of which contribute equally to the deficit. This remains so notwithstanding the GOP's War On Arithmetic.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This is typical of the gangster government we've come to expect from Mr Obama.

I clearly recall the run up to Obamacare. It amounted to a search for a likely boogie man. He tried to hammer doctors and got nowhere. Mostly because he sounded so completely stupid. Ah, Barrack, pediatricians don't do tonsilectomies. Just, you know, a polite fyi.

Now the Obama thugs and their sycophants in the press (I'm including Mr Sargent here, without a doubt) are shopping various boogie men for the upcoming election.

The best they can find is John Boehner. This must mean the demonizing of such stalwarts as Palin and Angle no longer yeilds sufficient results.

Now Boehner is just another trigger for the reliable pavlovian response of Mr Sargent's followers. When Mr Sargent needs blog hits, he can add Boehner to the rotation, probably right behind Angle. This will keep the lefties here busy hurling slanders and ad homs while the revenue for the WaPo that is based on visits continues to rise.

Go for it guys. Vent your innards all over the conservative opposition. Show the world how enlightened you are.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Where's qb at?

I guess Boehner finally answered his questions for him.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I will take a whack at this:
============
How low should federal taxes be and what should the federal government do?"

==============================

Since all government spending is ultimately a tax on the citizens, we should limit spending first and foremost.


the trick is to find the right blend of activities that will limit government scope (especially federal government scope) while insuring that the "environment" in which the citizenry lives is conducive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Secure the blessings of liberty: limit federal involvement in just about every aspect of American life

Provide for the common defense: It is a complex and dangerous world that Americans travel freely in accordance with the three prinicples outlined above. We should Spend enough to insure a continuing Pax Americana.

In general the less the federal government does, the better America will be. By driving the decisions away from DC we gain two important levers over government:

First, state and local governments must be far more responsive to their citizenry. Throwing out the bums from a state capitol is much easier than throwing out the bums in DC.

Next, people can always move away from a dysfunctional state. Look at the migration from California to Texas as an example.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!


Touche.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Just heard on ABC news:

Eric Cantor is now taking on John Boehner. No, Cantor wants to take the tax issue to the mattresses. No compromise!

Pull up the barcalounger and popcorn.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"I will take a whack at this:"

He swings ... and he misses!

Ideo-speak is not an answer. Let's try again:

How low should federal taxes be?

And what should the federal government do (beyond national defense)?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne @ September 13, 2010 1:10 PM wrote "Ideo-speak is not an answer."

But it is much easier than actually making choices!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 13, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

there's a term for this:
=================
He swings ... and he misses!

Ideo-speak is not an answer. Let's try again:

===========

I call it "propse/dispose". I propose something and you "No, that's not it."

The heck with that. don't like what I wrote, ask a specific question. You're just looking for a chance to fire off your 155mm smarm cannon anyway. go for it. Since slurs and ad homs are all the left has remaining, use them to the fullest. Show us all how enlightened you are.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with the deficit isn't taxes, it's spending"

Try to follow this simple equation:

Revenues (Taxes) minus Spending = Deficit

As one can plainly see, there are 2 variables in this equation, both of which contribute equally to the deficit. This remains so notwithstanding the GOP's War On Arithmetic.

Posted by: wbgonne
===========================================
No matter how much they raise taxes, we will still be running an ever increasing deficit. The spending part of the equation is increasing at an exponential rate. It is not possible to balance the equation by increasing taxes. I'm not a republican but I can see some very dark times ahead if this out of control spending does not get a major correction quickly. We already have a $13T and growing deficit. I cannot understand why that doesn't seriously worry you people.

Posted by: peterg73 | September 13, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"ask a specific question"

OK. For the THIRD time:

1. How low should federal taxes be?

2. What should the federal government do (beyond national defense)?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"No matter how much they raise taxes, we will still be running an ever increasing deficit."

Ahhh. A soldier in the GOP's War On Arithmetic, I see. Carry on!

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Nope, sorry, ideo questions aren't sufficient.

Do try again.

See how easy that is? Its just a game with you anyway. You don't actually care what anyone in opposition to you thinks. The left has retreated to its bunker mentality. Everyone who disagrees with them is viewed by them as being sub human.

Yeah, rally the American people around that flag pal.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Nope, sorry, ideo questions aren't sufficient. Do try again. See how easy that is? Its just a game with you anyway. You don't actually care what anyone in opposition to you thinks. The left has retreated to its bunker mentality. Everyone who disagrees with them is viewed by them as being sub human. Yeah, rally the American people around that flag pal."

"sub human"? What in the world are you talking about? I asked 2 simple questions:

1. How low should federal taxes be?

2. What should the federal government do (beyond national defense)?


Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "1. How low should federal taxes be?"

Very low. 18% flat tax. How bout that?

"2. What should the federal government do (beyond national defense)?"

Not much. Divesture or consolidation of duplicate programs? There's a lot of that. Roll back Medicare Part D?

Moot question. Almost nothing the government current does will be eliminated. No matter who wins.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The definition of small business on which that statistic is based includes everyone who reports any business income -- every Ebay hobby business, for example. In other words, the vast majority are not the businesses that hire people.

When you look at businesses that actually create jobs, a large percentage will be it. Look it up.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Stop the Obama propoganda.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"18% flat tax"

18% on what?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 2:35 PM

Thank you for the link. The article addresses how the "3%" limit is misleading quite well.

Posted by: marybel9999 | September 13, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

well this shows that at least one liberal here has lost his grip on the obvious:
==============
"The problem with the deficit isn't taxes, it's spending"

Try to follow this simple equation:

Revenues (Taxes) minus Spending = Deficit

As one can plainly see, there are 2 variables in this equation, both of which contribute equally to the deficit. This remains so notwithstanding the GOP's War On Arithmetic.

Posted by: wbgonne
========================

Let's try a little basic civics here.

Where does the government get the money it spends? If you said "The citizens" you'd be a winner.

Whether the spending is covered by current receipts or is funded via borrowing, it can only be paid by the people. The government generates no income of its own.

therefore ALL SPENDING IS EQUAL TO A TAX ON THE PEOPLE.

You need to restore your grip on the obvious before you fake yourself out in public again.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 13, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I am not a business major nor own a business but my friend does. So the 250,000 is this before or after taxes and expenses? He has 6 employees and him and his wife. each employee makes 25,000 a years and he and his wife make 43,000 per person. This is 233,000 in wages he says after taxes his business has maybe 23,000 to 26,000 a year to re invest. So somewhere this 250,000 doesn't seem to be a good figure. If the Bush tax cuts to away he will lay off 3 to 4 of his people since he takes in over $250,000 a year. I guess I am not to smart at this but small business to me would be a million or less not 250,000. Gee this guy is paying out 150,000 in wages along with SS tax etc. plus him and his wife wages of 43,000 each which to me for owning your own business does not seem like good money to me.
I think we should get rid of the income tax and IRS then have a 10% flat tax and eveyone pays. Only exeption would be food. No other exemtions ever. All pay and according to what I figure the treasury would be over flowing. Don't need more tha 10% either. If all pay the tax and the government stops spending at its current rate we would be in pretty good shape in 2 years from now. No more IRS what blessing that would be and tons of money. Hey they could even start paying back the Social Security money they stole from us.... Something to think about and make big sence. You all have a good one.

Posted by: drdavisdr | September 14, 2010 1:05 AM | 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