The President wants to raise taxes on "the rich". Republicans reject this because of the impact on small business proprietors.
Why not create a tax bracket for sole proprietors? Or actually, a bracket within existing brackets. Here's the idea....
If you are a sole proprietor (or whatever other corporate or quasi-corporate entity that represents a small business), you get locked in at existing rates...or even better, you get the current rate - 1%.
If you are not a small business owner, your income is taxed at the new (presumably higher in some cases) rate.
Job creators get a break, and those with higher incomes not directly creating other jobs pay the new tax.
Anything wrong with my thinking on this?
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I read you almost everyday, I seldom comment, once in awhile I do but you don't respond, that is ok I don't say anything particularly brilliant, but this is a brilliant idea! You obviously love our country and put a lot of thought into what it takes to run it and what it would take to run it better. I sincerely hope you have a chance in the future to play a meaningful role in our government, we could use more insightful, honest people like you.
Thank you, Karen!
Well, sole proprietors rarely have employees (I've tried; it's really hard), so maybe that's not the right group. But you're thinking about ways to reward real job creators, as opposed to financial speculators, and even an unabashed lefty like me appreciates that. Let me point out, however, that the cost of employees is a business expense, deductible from profits, and so there's already a pretty significant incentive to hire employees in any recognized business entity (whether sole prorietor / Sched C, LLC, or corporation).
Sorry PW, but I know a lot of "small business" people who hire others. Sometimes they are sole proprietors, sometimes they are an LLC, sometimes an S-corp.
Secondly, one doesn't employees because their cost can be deducted; one hires employees because one has customers. That the cost thereof can be deducted is of course, nice (and obviously, an benefit all businesses share), it serves only to REDUCE the tax burden passed along to owners. It is exactly that burden that would be raised by the President.
This is EXACTLY the group that I seek to target.
Here is what's wrong with your thinking. We have an Admin who will not cut spending (cutting the rate of increasing its spending is not cutting spending). We have a government that is far larger than we need and far larger than we can afford. The Admin, unfettered by the pesky accountability of another election, will double down on its "progressive" anti-business agenda, further reducing revenue while driving up those applying for ever expanding social safety nets. The government will continue to grow and Cloward-Piven's dream will be well on its way. Feeding these spenders one penny that is not the result of an increased private work force is like giving more and more blood transfusions to someone who purposely and continually cuts himself. If you are running short at the blood bank, maybe it's time to stop the cause of the bleeding so you can start to catch up on the blood deficit before the blood supply is gone in the bank AND the patient.
Post a Comment