[Vision2020] More Help for the Wealthy

Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com
Sun Apr 15 17:47:34 PDT 2012


Furthermore . . .

It was under King George XLIII the first time EVER that tax cuts were introduced in the United States during a time of war.  

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown



On Apr 15, 2012, at 17:28, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 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
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120415/9ca1405a/attachment.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list