Thursday, February 26, 2009

FACT CHECK: GOP adrift on small business claim

AP - By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Claims that President Barack Obama's tax plans are an assault on small business skirt the likelihood that most job-producing small businesses wouldn't feel that pinch at all.

Obama is proposing to raise taxes on households earning over $250,000 by increasing the rate on the top two tax brackets and limiting deductions, starting in 2011.
Republicans and other critics, knowing they will get little mileage from defending the rich, instead are casting the plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth.

That's not likely, according to one in-depth analysis, which found that more than 95 percent of small business owners would be off the hook.

Obama does not propose higher business taxes.

But critics reason that owners of many small companies report business income on their personal tax returns instead of filing corporate taxes. That exposes their business's earnings to Obama's higher tax rates on the wealthy.

To be sure, some business owners would get caught in that net.

But for one thing, most small businesses don't create jobs. They tend to be lawyers, accountants and other professionals who earn some of their money from partnerships or otherwise organize themselves as a business entity.

As well, many small businesses with employees don't earn enough to put their owners over the threshold for the higher tax rates.

Indeed, most of them — like Joe the Plumber of presidential campaign fame — would probably get Obama's tax break for the middle class.

Obama also proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses and make a research tax credit permanent. He would expand a provision that allows money-losing companies to get refunds from taxes paid in previous years, when the companies were profitable.

Still, Obama is not cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as his supporters often say. The president himself asserted Thursday that he's giving a "a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of hardworking families."

An independent analysis estimated that 75.5 percent of all U.S. households would get his tax credit for workers. A higher percentage of working families would get it.

THE CLAIMS:

_"In fact, a majority of those penalized by the proposed tax increase in this budget are small businesses." — Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

_"Small businesses and the entrepreneurs who lead them have been the primary drivers of job growth over the past decade. This plan would punish them with higher taxes, resulting in less government revenue, less economic growth, and fewer jobs — not more." — Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

THE FACTS:

The U.S. has roughly 6 million businesses that employ people, and 20 million businesses without employees.

The latter group includes solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes but earn little if any income from the enterprise.
Small businesses are defined as having fewer than 500 workers each.

Sizable companies within that group wouldn't be snagged by Obama's personal tax rates simply because they are too large to report income on the individual return of the owner.
Many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit.

Last year the Tax Policy Center run jointly by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution examined the likely effects of Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000.
The analysis estimated that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income or losses fall in the two tax brackets whose rates would go up under Obama. Many are small businesses on paper, without workers.

Millions of other small-business owners would be clear.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Raising taxes never helped anyone. The ReaganKnights will eliminate the business tax, corporate tax, wealth surcharge tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax. This will bring in many small businesses and corporations to the FSA because they will not have to pay these taxes, giving them more money to produce more and employ more people. This will create jobs and spur enormous economic growth in our country. Wouldn't it be nice it the U.S. could figure this out?

Anonymous said...

Scott:
This would be a great idea in a mythical 'U.S.A.' (Utopian States of America). But let us face the facts, get something straight, or if you prefer, wake up. You have so avidly opposed a stimulus package and sought to reduce the deficit, yet what is a country's main source of revenue? Taxes. These tax eliminations would only expand the deficit of the F.S. I have no problem doing so, though I would choose to cut taxes in a wiser area, such as individual tax cuts, since the fate of a business relies on consumer spending. Also, how would a small business "come" to the F.S. if it is a "small business"? Small business do not go international because they, like their name states, are small. And may I ask, what is the point of a business being able to produce more goods and employ more people if there are not enough people to buy these things? America's GM has virtually stopped making new cars bescause, you guessed it, NO ONE WILL BUY THEM. It seems to me that many of your ideas contradict themselves. Nuclear power plants. Tax cuts. Deficits. Stimulus packages. Alternative fuels. Where does it stop? Wouldn't it be nice if the F.S. could figure this out?

Anonymous said...

May I also add:
What happened to your "Let's Do Nothing" theory? Are you not the one who criticized the governments involvement in the economy? Are you not the same one that said, 'I'm reminded of what Ronald Reagan said in his first Inaugural Address. "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."'? So isn't the elmination of business tax, corporate tax, wealth surcharge tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax very contradictory to not only your's, but Former U.S. President Reagan's views? I think so. What say you?