Taxing Questions
In defending his proposed tax increase in last night’s debate, Sen. Obama said, as he has said on numerous occasions,
Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan.Let us assume, for the same of argument, that this statement is true. So what? It’s almost totally irrelevant.
What’s relevant is how many of those “individuals” making over $250,000 are not rich fat cats but actually small business owners reporting their income from their businesses on their personal returns. It would also be useful to have a breakdown of these small business owner-individuals by the number of their employees.
Many small businesses are sole proprietorships run almost as a hobby, or a second or third job. But the small businesses that are their owners’ primary source of income, especially the ones that employ others, are the real engine of employment in the economy, and Sen. Obama’s glib evasions mask the fact that his proposed tax increase would place a serious strain on that engine, a governor president limiting its top speed.
UPDATE [10 Oct.]
Several correspondents have suggested that I should have mentioned the Small Business Administration’s definition of small business. They’re right. Obama has said that most small businesses would not be affected by his tax increase, but unless he’s engaging in pure misrepresentation he’s defining small business in a way unknown to the SBA.
Say What?
Thats excellent. I thought I may be the only person that hit on that part of the debate. Excellent points!
Posted by: Ann | October 8, 2008 3:26 PM
Old saw, still sharp-
As usual, a "tarrif" on successfully rising "above average" , and a delusional reward for "under performance", so why bother to excel, or even commit above absolute minimum?
Damn "the black man" for trying to keep me down- below the "doesn't lose ANYTHING to taxes" (about)50th percentile.
Posted by: CaptDMO | October 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Do you mean "stain" on that engine, or "strain?" I think "stain" would not really be le mot juste.
Posted by: Mark Seecof | October 9, 2008 2:16 PM
This is likely one of those promises Obama will make during the campaign that he will likely quietly shelve, or have second thoughts about in office.
During the election, statements like these appeal to the great majority who see businesses and people with large incomes having too much income (ie, they are filled with unjustified envy).
However, I am sure that level-headed economist will point out the employment consequences of increasing taxes on businesses.
Posted by: Some Dude ... | October 9, 2008 3:44 PM