[Vision2020] More Help for the Wealthy

[Art Deco]

In the 60s and early 70's tax cuts did produce hiring.  Since then, not so
much.  One of the largest growths in hiring occurred after taxes were
raised during the Clinton years.

w.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> **
> On 04/15/2012 04:31 PM, Art Deco wrote:
>
> Despite the Mom-and-Pop label, it is designed so that nearly half of the
> tax cut would go to people with annual income over $1 million, and more
> than four-fifths would go to those making over $200,000, according to the
> Tax Policy Center<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3342&DocTypeID=1>.
>
>
>
> That's a little disingenuous.  The over $1M tax bracket goes all the way
> up, whereas the lower tax brackets have a ceiling.  That's like complaining
> that the highest paid employees get a better deal out of a straight
> percentage raise, on average.  Of course they do.  According to the link to
> govtrack.us that was in the original email (
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr9), here is what the bill
> actually does:
>
> "Small Business Tax Cut Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow
> domestic businesses a tax deduction for 20% of the lesser of their
> qualified domestic business income (income effectively connected with a
> trade or business in the United States) or their taxable income for the
> taxable year. Limits the amount of such deduction to 50% of the the greater
> of the W-2 wages (payroll) paid to business non-owners or the sum of the
> W-2 wages paid to non-owner family members of direct owners (i.e.,
> stockholders), plus any W-2 wages paid to direct owners who have a 10% or
> less interest in a business."
>
> It's a straight percentage, with a maximum amount cut (also a
> percentage).  So of course it will benefit the largest cash earners the
> most, but it still benefits every small business.  With the economy the way
> it is, I can see why they want this.  Reduce the tax burden so that
> businesses of all sizes can increase profits.  This is a direct boost to
> the economy, at the expense of some tax revenue.  I don't know if the loss
> in revenue is worth the possible increase in businesses bottom lines, but
> that's a math question, really.
>
> Also, limiting the maximum amount to a percentage of wages paid is one way
> to create an incentive for creating jobs.  The larger the payroll, the
> larger the possible tax break.  Kind of clever, actually.
>
> Paul
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120415/64b2689f/attachment-0001.html>