CNN's King allowed McConnell to revive debunked small business tax claim
SUMMARY: CNN's John King allowed Sen. Mitch McConnell to revive the debunked claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 would affect a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, 481,000 small businesses -- about 2 percent -- fall in the top two income tax brackets that would be affected by those increases.
During the February 22 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King allowed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to revive the debunked claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 would affect a large percentage of small businesses. After King stated that "the Obama administration says it will, as he promised during the campaign, let the Bush tax cuts go away for Americans who make more than $250,000 a year," McConnell replied, "[W]hen the -- our good friends on the other side of the aisle say raising the taxes on the wealthy, what they're really talking about is small business. A vast majority of American small businesses pay taxes as individual taxpayers. So, we've got to ask ourselves whether increasing capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and taxes on small business is a great thing to do in the middle of a deep recession."
Likewise, a February 22 Hill article reported: "McConnell said that tax hikes on the wealthy, which [President] Obama is expected to propose in his first budget, would hit small businesses."
McConnell's assertion is a revival of a false talking point made by Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign. As Media Matters for America documented, McCain falsely claimed that "[i]f you are one of the 23 million small business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is going to raise your tax rates." In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center's table of 2007 tax returns that reported small business income, 481,000 of those returns -- about 2 percent -- are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000.
From the February 22 edition of CNN's State of the Union with John King:
KING: I want to start with the president's budget, and this promise we're hearing this morning to cut the federal budget deficit in half by the end of the first term. To do that, the Obama administration says it will, as he promised during the campaign, let the Bush tax cuts go away for Americans who make more than $250,000 a year. There are some other, what you would call, I assume, tax increases involved in that as well.
Let's start with that basic premise. The Democrats have the votes in the House, but they need some Republicans in the Senate as we learned in the stimulus battle. Will that fly, and do you think it's the right approach given the state of the economy?
McCONNELL: Well, I don't think raising taxes is a great idea, and when the -- our good friends on the other side of the aisle say raising the taxes on the wealthy, what they're really talking about is small business. A vast majority of American small businesses pay taxes as individual taxpayers. So, we've got to ask ourselves whether increasing capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and taxes on small business is a great thing to do in the middle of a deep recession. I think most of my members will think that that's not a smart move.
KING: Another question for the government is the continuing financial institutions bailout.
From the February 22 Hill article:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned President Obama on Sunday not to include tax increases on the wealthy in his upcoming budget plan, saying that doing so wouldn't be a "smart move" during a recession.
McConnell said that tax hikes on the wealthy, which Obama is expected to propose in his first budget, would hit small businesses.
"So we have got to ask ourselves whether increasing capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and taxes on small businesses is a great thing to do in the middle of a deep recession," McConnell said on CNN on Sunday. "I think most of my members will think that that's not a smart move."
And the small uptick in their tax rate will most likely not ruin them at all financially. If it does, their business was sick to start with methinks.
Seeing as how you tax INCOME/PROFIT as oppose to REVENUE, they only way they will paying more at all is if they're doing well. I'm sure they'd rather have the extra money, but they benefit more from a broadly successful economy, which the last decade and a a half will so is not a likely result of the prevailing republican philosophy.
So, once the Bush bailouts are handed down without oversight to the undeserving ones you like, they should stop?
I was never in favor of any bailouts. Period. I thought Bush was wrong also.
Amen.
Is it taxing success, or is it taxing them appropriately? I argue that it is the latter.
Legitimate questions are raised...issues upon which fair-minded people may differ in opinion. However, once again, what is revealed is how Republicans cloud legitmate issues with exaggeration, hyperbole and outright fabrications. Global Warming is a liberal myth... Barack Obama wants to attack Pakistan... ACORN is in line to get over $5 billion... Austin, Texas is getting a Frisbee golf course at taxpayer expense... The list is practically endless... In a nutshell, that is why I could never vote Republican...they don't deal with issues honestly. Hell, I might agree with them sometimes, but I am inclined to tune them out because their methodolgy is so patently dishonest...and insulting to one's intelligence.
Irony,
It looks to me like you are reading MMFA headlines for your critique of Republicans. You are as guilty of distortions that in my view are equal to or worse than anything the Republicans said.
Lastly, one doesn't have to look far to see Democrats are guilty of the same thing you criticize Republicans.
A few of my favorites:
Obama reneging on accepting public funding for his general election campaign.
Obama saying he would not employ lobbyists in his administration.
Obama saying he was concieved after the Selma "Bloody Sunday" demonstration when he was born four years before that happened.
Biden saying during one debate that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Everyone remembers Barack Obama did specifically say it. ...and Joe Biden attacked him for it in the primaries.
Pelosi lying about the Catholic position on birth control.
I'm sure you can justify these examples.... (ahem.)
I believe you missed my point, AA...
I am more than willing to concede that all politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, often make campaign promises they don't keep...and sometimes experience brain farts which cause them to say goofy things. Barack Obama implemented stringent anti-lobbying requirements for those serving in his administration and then made an exception for one or two people. I don't like that but I also look at the bigger picture. In a John McCain administration being a lobbyist would most likely have been a prerequisite for being hired. But that's not what I am talking about.
Republicans won't debate issues in a straightforward way. Take Global Warming, for example. That Global Warming is a real threat and that man's activities have contributed greatly to it is so firmly established in the scientific community that it should not even be a subject of debate. The real issue is whether we will suffer an economic disadvantage if our industries must re-tool and Russia, China and othe nations do not. However, Republicans won't debate that issue. Instead, they attempt to obfuscate that real issue by having Jerry Falwell claim Global Warming is a Satanically inspired liberal myth. Ludicrously, they attempt to disprove that Global Warming even exists...despite the consensus in the scientific commmunity. Republicans won't debate the real issues. They create bogus issues in order to distract the gullible ideologues. That's what I am talking about. And I don't need MMFA to point that out.
Irony,
I do believe I did get your point. You have an opinion that is colored by your political views in which you accept liberal positions as 'gospel' and see opposing viewpoints as dishonest.
There is considerable debate about global warming, however the debate is about the cause of global warming. You, and Al Gore say it is beyond debate. However that is simply your opinion. the question is how much effect is mankind having on the global climate. Beyond that debate, there is yet another debate over whether global warming is detrimental or benificial. Since the globe is always warming or cooling, we know that the earth is either in a phase of warming up, or in a phase of cooling down. Even if there is an optimum world wide temperature and we are now close to that optimum, it will change whether we do anything or not. So for you, (and Al,) to say the debate is closed is misleading at best. But you take the liberal point of view as gospel.
Republicans do not have Jerry Fallwell do issue any press releases regarding GW and/or Satan. Maybe Falwell once said that, but in case you missed it, he passed away. Nowhere does any Republican position include anything about Satan. To offer that as an argument, (I assume with a straight face,) only again shows your incredible bias against Republicans.
You obviously ignore the fact that Republicans debate the economic consequences of the Kyoto Accord all the time. However there is not much to debate. Even Clinton did not submit the treaty to Congress. How you can say they won't discuss the issues is, in my view, a head-in-the-sand response.
I find your response especially amusing when the Democrats pushed through the 787 billion dollar stimulus/pork bill and only gave members of congress and the public less than 12 hours to read the 1,000 page bill and with no debate! The largest spending bill by far and the Republicans were left out. All we got was Obama flying around crying to every sound bite that the sky is falling, the sky is falling. All he has done as President with his economic policy is further send the stock market down the tubes. So give me a break about distracting gullible ideologues.
You crack me up. Irony says that Republicans/Conservatives/Neocons obfuscate the real issues and won't debate the real issues.
You proved him right by doing EXACTLY what he said Reps/Cons/Neocons do.
Thanks for validating his point. It made it become that much more alive.
csl,
Hahahaha.... Stop. Stop. Please! I can't breath, I can't breath!
Usually I laugh at libs who don't let facts get in their way, but I see you found a way around that. ;-)
But you take the liberal point of view as gospel.
The IPCC report on Global Warming was a liberal point of view? I thought it represented the view of the top scientists in the world on that issue. But I know how Republicans hate all that science stuff...
I still believe my point eludes you. Do you actually believe that ACORN is set to receive $5 billion from the stimulus bill? Do you seriously believe that the stimulus bill gives Austin, Texas for a new Frisbee golf course? And the list goes on... Why don't Republicans stick to legitmate debate on philosophical differences regarding the stimulus bill rather than interjecting untruthful and bogus issues? Because the real debate would last about a day, they'd lose and they wouldn't fire up their base as much. So they cloud the real issues. Get it...?
Of course he believes all that, Rush told him to!
Irony.
Republicans do not hate all that science stuff. They only disdain the pseudo-science and fearmongering that goes with it. It is liberals who constantly and purposefully try to misinterpret the Republican positions, like you are doing, and then saying Republicans "cloud" the real issues that is laughable.
Nobody said Acron is getting $5 billion. If you look carefully, they said Acorn and similar organizations (community stablization non-profits,) of which Acorn is one, qualify to get the $.
I did not follow the Austin Frisbee accusation.
The Republicans I have been catching are bringing up legitimate points about how the stimulus bill is really a pork bill and that billions won't be spent for at least two years and much of that spending will not stimulate the economy or create new jobs. I also see Republicans trying to get the word out that the CBO says this stimulus plan will have a long term negative effect on GDP. Ever see a Democrat debate that? I love the fact that you claim Republicans cloud the issue when the Democrats only gave everyone 12 hours to read the final $787 Billion dollar bill before voting. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it also done over the weekend?
Irony, don't go throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
Appropriately is subjective at best. I'm not a big supporter of businesses going off shore to avoid taxation, but since the US has made the so rates high, I don't blame the business owners much. The taxes on myself and my business are huge, I pay them every year without fail unlike a few in the new administration, and all I can do is bitch about it and vote, which does no good in NY, we vote D across the board everytime. I would like them to be lower, and keep more of the money I earned, but probably not going to happen, along with the other 481,000 small business owners. And this won't sound good to Biden who believes paying taxes is a Patriotic thing to do, but if I can find a loophole, I'll take it everytime, too.
Ah, nice swipe at some people who also paid their taxes in the new administration, albeit late.
You need a better accountant I think, because there are a vast majority of businesses across the US that don't pay taxes at all.
Are you in the 2% of businesses that will be taxed slightly higher? I would like for my taxes to be lower as well, but being a small business owner have you not benefitted from lower tax rates for the last 8 years? Anyone who can find a loophole will take them. If you don't, then you're not taking advantage of the tax code.
I also believe that paying taxes is a patriotic thing to do, but I still complain about it. I don't know anyone who doesn't complain about it. How else do we keep our country at the top of the food chain without taxes?
I would like for my taxes to be lower as well, but being a small business owner have you not benefitted from lower tax rates for the last 8 years?
Yes, and I wish to keep it that way.
Want lower taxes? Move to Zimbabwe.
no, I didn't. I had to shell out $500 a year for a road use tax (something you don't pay as an individual), $1500 a year for apportion tags so my truck could cross state lines and various other crap that was supposed to help pay for the crumbling infrastructure. My only breaks came when I created a sub chapter s corporation. Glad I only had that business on the side, because when republicans did nothing about rising gas prices that $5 a gallon for diesel practically ruined my business.
If you are happy with the prices you pay, then keep voting D. I live in NY which have the highest prices on fuel in the country. Paterson is in control along with 2 D senators. Preaching to the choir on fuel prices and taxes, but do the Patriotic thing....pay them and shut up.
I will keep voting D, cause right now I believe they will invest in alternate energy and drive for fuel efficiency which will in turn reduce demand on gas and drive down the prices.
You may want to take a peek at a fuel map, new york pays nowhere near the highest prices in the country:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
www.newyorkgasprices.com/Tax_Info.aspx
Correction, NY is second behind CA.
You mean 7th.
http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/Prices_Nationally.aspx
We're #1 in the Lower 48 !!!
California is a national disaster on so many levels.
And it's run by a republican. One who was seriously floated as a presidential candidate in spite of that natural born citizenship issue...
Yes even though Dems control the Assembly 48-32 and the Senate 25-15 I'm sure it's all the Terminator's fault.
You're an extremely consistent poster in your partisan finger pointing I will give you that.
I'm sure that supermajority rule in california that allows republicans from keeping anything from getting done never clouded your vision. You sure are a consistant apologist for failed policies, I'll give you that.
I didn't blame eitrher side, unlike you.
I didn't blame either side either, I just pointed out that it was run by a republican.
Thank you for the Public Service Announcement.
Thank you for your cooperation and have a great day!
But you don't see many Californians moving to Oklahoma for the lower gas prices.
We would all like to pay lower taxes. That's a no-brainer.
What people (IMHO) fail to realize is that our financial situation is in a bad situation. Tax increases may be one of the ways to help deaden some of the pain we might feel in the future. We're all Americans here. We're all in this mess together. As a society, we all need to do our part, pay our taxes, and work hard to get out of this mess.
I agree that paying your taxes is patriotic. It's also the responsibile thing for an individual to do, if that individual would like to live in a civilized society.
One of the issues I have is with the whole right-wing re-framing of raising taxes to "punish the success" of the business. Right-wingers know that it's not in order to punish the success of the business. They just want to keep pushing this meme because they think it makes us on the Left look bad. It's typical conservative bs - misinform the public, re-frame the issue into something that it really isn't, then blame everyone but themselves when their failed policies don't work.
And, if you notice, the people who are publicly bloviating this position the most are multi millionaires who make more money than a normal person could spend in a lifetime.
Most people could take one year of Rush Limbaugh's salary and set it up so that neither they nor any of their descendants would ever have to work again.
Sorry, but I don't think people like that are paying too many taxes.
1) Cutting spending will HURT the economy. And it will hurt the economy MORE than raising taxes will. The balanced budget income multiplier is "1". That means that if you raise both taxes and spending in balance, you will raise income (collectively) by that same amount. At the same time, cutting BOTH taxes and spending in balance will LOWER collective income by the same amount. I wish you people would understand basic economics before talking about cutting spending. Your ideas on spending are suicidal.
2) If by bailouts you mean GIVING $350B (so far) to banks without any oversight, regulation or even a friggin PLAN, then I agree with you 100%. If you by bailouts you mean LOANING $35B to the auto industry, then I have to ask WHY THE HELL NOT? Do you think the economy will improve if Millions of more people lose their jobs?
"The economy" relies on consumption. It relies on people having money to spend and SPENDING IT. A little bit more in taxes being paid by those who spend little as a percentage of their income now (that would be RICH PEOPLE) will not hurt the economy as much as 100's of 1000's of people being unemployed. If you make $225K vs. $230K after taxes, your spending will not change much. But if you make $50K vs. NOTHING then your spending changes dramatically. (t goes from 0 to about $50K!) That's where stimulus and spending and even welfare HELP the economy.
And if you're that worried about taxes, just realize that the money you would have left were it not for taxes, you would not have had anyway, since the gov't spending that so many customers derive their incomes from would not have ahppened, and thus YOUR income (of that of your employer or those co's in your portfolio) would not have happened.
Better we all benenfit sustainably, than only a few benefiting unsustainably. (That's Reaganomics for you.)
NGE,
If your multiplier works, why not raise taxes to 100% of your income? Wouldn't that raise collective income by 100%?
Hi Barney. You may want to consider re-reading things a couple of times, slowly, before posting.
I'm sure they do say enough is enough, like our friend joe the plumber. Look what taxes did to that thriving business!
This is just nonsense. If a small business is making 250,000 or more in profit, then the recession isn't hurting them much. The small business I work for is just barely breaking even after 10 good years. We'd KILL for 250,000 in profits.
Besides, if a business owner finds him/herself approaching this tax bracket, and the idea of giving more money to Uncle Sam is SOOOOO repugnant.... they can avoid it by hiring another employee. VOILA! Another job created.
Damned right Nerzog. How many people or businesses would love to be in the highest bracket there is? I'm really tired of listening to the screechers talking about these imaginary and theoretical businesses like Sam the fake plumber's.
If those in the highest tax bracket paid 75 % to the IRS, I'd still be damned thankfully if I were in that bracket.
If those in the highest tax bracket paid 75 % to the IRS, I'd still be damned thankfully if I were in that bracket.
Is Robin Hood your folk hero?
Was Robin Hood really a Democrat? (OT, but a funny point...)
While it's true that he "Robbed for the rich, and gave to the poor" - which is how Republican's describe teh Domcrat's economic policies - consider what he was actually fighting against in the story:
CRIPLINGLY HIGH TAXES!!! He was stealing TAX REVENUE! And GIVING IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHO PAID IT!!!
Now... I would think that many a REPUBLICAN might claim that this is what their party wants to do.
I'm not really commenting on Tax Policy here, just asking the Right to stop picking on Robin Hood so much! ;)
You know, if I were in the upper tax bracket, I'd be very happy to pay my fair share of taxes, even if the amount is astronimically higher than most Americans. It's part of one's duty as a citizen to pony up. If you don't want to pay taxes, take your sorry a$$ elsewhere. We sure as hell don't want you clogging our roads with your cars, calling our fire department when your business is on fire, etc.
You don't want to pay for those services (which are paid for by tax money)? Then don't call upon those services.
BTW, the above wasn't meant toward anyone on this thread (unless you're an unrepentant greedy right-wing toad), especially not you, NiceguyEddie. :P
csl,
Do you take any deductions when filling out your tax return?
Do you end up paying any federal taxes at all?
Why are you arguing that those who don't pay federal income taxes should not get any "services"? After all, they don't pay for them do they. Or are you saying only those that don't want to pay for the services, (even if they do pay for them,) should not get the services?
csl, It's the old "love America or leave it" argument only with the liberal spin.
Incidentally, there have been studies that show that people who have higher incomes actually use many public services more than their lower income counterparts. (For example, the roads - lower income don't have as many cars, live closer to work, etc). So there's something to be said for the 'if you make more you should pay more' mentality
Yep, and the higher income earners pay more gas taxes (mileage travelled + Hummer vs. Civic gas mileage).
Common, what % do you pay? What % do you say is fair? Do you not agree it would be fair to pay the same %? I have no problem paying taxes, but feel it should be the same for all, no matter your income, since we all use the same services?
People who can afford to pay more should pay more and people who would be in dire straits if you took from them should pay less. The only way I would support what you are suggesting is if everyone was making the same salary.
Loonz, it is a % of income. Should we not all carry the same amount of weight? Why is that so hard to follow, in the state you live, you pay the same % of sales tax, why not the same in federal tax? As Common said, we are paying for the same services, why not pay the same %?
No. Taking 15% from a person making 30K per year is a lot more painful than taking 15% from a person making 100k so the burden would not be the same.
I'm using more services than the people who make less than me and so do you.
I would say those who make less, would use more of some services. Example, I am sure if you are making less, you may be on food stamps, or you are on the SCHIP program for your kids. Again, why not pay equal.
I'm in the 28% bracket, if you must know.
I believe in paying my share of taxes. But, that's because I love my country and my fellow man more than I love money. How about you?
If you don't like paying your share of taxes, then by all means, get out of this civilized society. It's as simple as that. You people on the Right are always screaming that people get services that they don't pay for. Well, then you should also believe that everyone should have to pay their fair share to be able to take advantage of collective services offered through the local/state/federal government (such as police, fire services, etc.) what are paid for by taxes. People to pay in order to get something (i.e. taxes for social goods and services, infrastructure, etc.), so quit crying, live within your means and pay you freakin' taxes, you whining babies!
You Righties crying about taxes are the same, if not worse, than those you deride who live off government assistance. You folks on the Right are the ones who want something for nothing. You want little to no tax burden, but you sure want to take advantage of the services available BECAUSE OF taxes.
To answer your other questions, I believe a progressive tax is in order, depending on income. If you make more, you should pay more, period. It's not punishing people for making more money. If you see it like that, you really do need to change your perception of the world. I do not agree that it would be fair for all income ranges to pay the same percentage.
Wow Common, striked a cord there! We can just disagree as usual. I am happy to may taxes, I do every year. Looking right now, my family will be paying about 32% of our income to a federal tax system. Also, I fall under Obama's 250K mark as well, thank goodness. I do think that we should all pay a equal share not based on our income, but a equal %. You on the left always scream about equality, but seems on taxes you do not, why is that? If President Obama makes 400K this year, he should pay 20% of his income, just like the person down the street making 50K. Why is that not fair, if we all receive the same service?
If everyone's wages were equal, I would have no problem with a flat tax.
If everyone's wages were equal, I would have no problem with a flat tax. -loonz
Good luck with him understanding that.
Loonz, and Ben. Why would we all be paid the same. If I have a degree from a college, been in the same job for 14 yrs and have worked my way up, why would a H.S. Grad get the same pay as me? I would be happy to have Obama's pay check. Loonz and Ben, why should we be payed equal. I agree that someone with the same skills, same education and same year of experience should make the same, but if I out perform you each year, I should be paid more.
I didn't expect him to understand. How badly he misunderstood was kind of suprising.
Here are a couple of hints for you, Mark.
Who said we should be "payed equal"?
What does "if" mean?
CSL,
You mentioned you are in the 28% tax bracket. That means your income is over $78,850 but you do not actually pay 28% since that is your marginal tax rate.
I want you to know that mark and I have decided you are not paying enough. If you really loved your country and your fellow man, you should pay 50% taxes. Yes, all things being equal, that is almost doubling your taxes, and makes your take home income (not including State taxes which you still need to pay and assuming you are in the middle of the 28% of tax bracket,) about the same as the median household in the U.S. However, if you don't like it, we think you should move.
What do you have to say about that?
What do you think about all the money Biden and Obama gave to charity before landing in office? What do you think about the tax cheats - Geitner and Daschle? Obviously they are doing what you are railing against.
Really, I think if you really loved your country and your fellow man, you'd be happy to give up your deductions and give that money to the government. After all, they don't waste that money.
Your post is ridiculous. People who have more should pay more. They can afford it; it's not like we're putting them in the poorhouse.
loonz,
Thanks for proving my point. I am just giving CSL's argument back to him. So who is being ridiculous?
ps. Have you not been paying attention? People who have more on the whole do pay more. Unless they are Democrats setting policy on all of us while they cheat on taxes or don't give to charity.... Oh yeah, I forgot Rangel. You can add him to the list.
It's you, of course.
I notice you forgot to include Sarah Palin on your list of tax cheats.
Seriously, with stuff like
it's going to be tough for anybody to compete with you in a ridiculousness contest.
Craig,
I am only taking CSL's argument and carrying it further out to show the ridiculousness of the argument. Everytime taxes are raised on anyone, it is because someone else says the taxed group is not paying it's fair share. Or did that go over your head?
You found CSL's "argument" that people should pay their fair share of taxes ridiculous? Why am I not surprised.
What is ridiculous is to compare tax rates determined by the democratic legislative process to an arbitrary decision made by you and your simple sidekick.
That's why you win the contest.
This is a lie. Rangel, Geithner and Daschle paid a ton of taxes.
Democrats give to charity albeit not religious institutions. Robertson and Dobson are rich enough.
But they should have paid 1 1/2 tons (Oh, I guess they did when it came to light). As I recall, Dems may give to Charity but not the all the same % wise (See Biden, Obama, Gore, etal). I believe Charitiable giving should be up to the individual, but I dislike seeing/hearing someone telling me I ain't giving enough, when it turns out % wise to be more that the speaker is giving.
Charitable contributions and taxes are two different things, in case you didn't know. One is required, and there are tax documents that show us definitively what someone earned and what they paid in taxes. The other is voluntary, and there is no obligation to declare any or all of one's charitable contributions, so we don't know how much Obama or Biden contribute to charity!
You aren't 'giving' anything when you are paying taxes.
We do know they claimed some charitible giving. It is pure kool-aid to think claimed a little and then left out the majority of their charitible contributions on their taxes.
Here is Biden's returns:
Adjusted
Gross Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
Total $2,450,042 $3,690
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/09/bidens_charitab.php
Here is Obama's:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
In a typical conservative fashion, you've twisted my comment.
Obviously you don't get my point.
It takes tax money (whether federal, state or local) to provide services each of us count on. We all pay taxes. We all "chip in", if you will.
You want to pay less taxes. You don't want to "chip in" your fair share. But you want to continue to receive the luxury of the services provided by that tax money, tax money that EVERYONE has paid. You want to not pay taxes, or as little as possible, but you want full benefit.
Sounds to me like another Republican who wants something for nothing.
Somebody give these babies some bottles to shut them the hell up.
csl,
Do you claim any deductions? If so, why are you trying to pay less taxes?
Why do you get to determine what is my fair share? If so, two can play that game. I say your fair share is 50% of your income. If you don't pitch in and pay your "fair share" you are getting the benefits without paying for it.
I have no problem with paying my fair share. What cracks me up is that you accuse me of not doing my fair share when I do pay my taxes and you defend the millions who pay no taxes but get the benefits.
"During 2006, economists for The Tax Foundation estimated that 43 million Americans do not pay income taxes. On top of this number add 15 million individuals and households who do not file tax returns. Approximately 121 million - or 41% of the population - are outside the federal tax system."
http://incometaxinfo.blogspot.com/2008/01/43-million-americans-pay-no-income.html
What do you have to say to those people? The lower income voters mostly vote Democratic. Seems to me they have a vested interest in getting something for nothing.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
Its not nonsense. I'm not being "hurt" in the reccession, admittedley. I'm lucky so far. And I do not need anymore employees. But there's nothing wrong with me wishing to keep more profit for myself instead of just handing it over to the Feds. Afterall, its my profit, and according to Mrs Dave, I will not just stuff it into an account, I will buy stuff. I'm simply fed up with paying more in taxes.
But, you've been paying less over the last 8 years then due to Bush and Company, and you won't be paying more until next year.
There's nothing wrong with paying less. As you've expressed, who wouldn't wish to pay less? And that's why Bush got my vote twice, but my taxes have increased slightly every year. But I know the flood gates are going to open up....its coming, so can I start hating BO's policies now? Cutting spending is the only way to reduce taxes. BO has no interest in either. Neither did Bush.
But I know the flood gates are going to open up....its coming, so can I start hating BO's policies now?
You don't know that...you are just afraid of that. Bottom line is that if Obama goes to too far then he'll be voted out in 2012. I don't see that happening.
Cutting spending is the only way to reduce taxes. BO has no interest in either. Neither did Bush.
CUTTING SPENDING WILL HURT THE ECONOMY, LOWERING OUR COLLECTIVE INCOMES AND HURTNG YOUR PROFITS FAR MORE THAN TAXES DO!!! WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS!!! Where do you think your profits come from, huh? OTHER PEOPLE'S INCOMES!!! Do you have ANY idea how much of your income is therefore derived indirectly from "GOVERNMENT SPENDING"? You would be doing WORSE if there was no taxing and spending. MUCH WORSE.
WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS!!! Where do you think your profits come from, huh? OTHER PEOPLE'S INCOMES!!!
True enough, and I wish those people had more money for themselves so they could give Dave, Inc a portion of it, as opposed to BO inc taking it from them in the name of higher taxes. And of course, I'd pay the appropriate taxes on the transaction.
Do you really think the average consumers aren't spending because their taxes are too high?
GOVERNMENT SPENDING BECOMES INCOME FOR THOSE SAME PEOPLE!!! WHERE DO YOU THINK THE MONEY GOES!!! IT GOES TO THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE THE GOODS AND SEVRICES THAT THE GOV'T BUYS! (Or it's given to people in the for of welfare - satisfied repub's?) But either way it BECOMES INCOME. INCOME THAT IS THEN SPENT AT PRIVTE BUSINESSES!!! HOW COULD PEOPLE HAVE MORE INCOME IF THEY LOST ALL OF THE BUSINESS THAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES THEM? That's WHY govenrments SPEND money - BECAUSE IT HELPS THE ECONOMY!!! You think the gov't would spend if it HURT THE ECONOMY?! Sheesh.
See, Republicans, in general, must accept the premise that ALL government spending (except defense) just vaporizes, and is therefore "wasteful."
Bobby Jindal wallowed in this delusion a couple of times on Meet the Press, unchallenged by Gregory, of course. As examples of wasteful spending, he listed Federal purchase of new computers and new vehicles.
Now, think about that. The Government wants to buy several billion dollars worth of computers and cars, and this Troglodyte Exorcist thinks it won't stimulate the economy? And he wants to be President?
Must be nice. I cannot remember the last time I got a tax cut, if ever.
Actually, there is something wrong with paying less - especially if you're paying less but using the same, if not more, of the services provided by tax money.
I'm not being "hurt" in the reccession, admittedley. I'm lucky so far.
You SHOULD consider yourself lucky, dave..and (for once) I'm not being sarcastic.
It's profit that you wouldn't have if people had less money to spend... which would be the result of reduced spending... which woul dbe the result of lower taxes.
Your complaing about paying back a percentage of money that you wouldn't have had anyway.
I disagree, respectfully, of course. Reduced spending by the Feds will put more money in people's pockets, if they couple that with a tax cut for everyone. Thus, you can't cut taxes without reducing spending. IMO, people at every end of the spectrum will spend money they have on whatever they wish, be it food, housing, or a yacht, if you let them keep their own money, they will spend it. Newt had an option, suspend the Fed tax for a few months and see what happens. The Govt gets less, but the taxpayer gets to keep more. Beats a taxpayer bailout. Or Bob Brinker had an idea....reduce the payroll taxes of employees as the apparatus was already in place, either one puts more money in the pockets of taxpayers.
Reduced spending by the Feds will put more money in people's pockets, if they couple that with a tax cut for everyone.
This statement runs 100% contrary to every macroeconomic law and theory there is. If the average american could pass a college level macro-econmics test, the republicans would be lucky to hold 10 seats in the senate. Me - I aced the course, at the Graduate level. And History is repleat with examples that back up these thoeries. (Theories are, after all, based on evidence - contrary to what those who do not understand them think.) And bedies, when faced with any real decision making, even the republicans come around (look at Bush) and realize that cutting spending will kill the economy. You are too narroely focused, and take to short-term a view.
Well, since I never attended a graduate course in macroeconomic law and theory, what did you learn about printing money in your basement to get you out of debt? Was that covered?
Yes, it's called counterfeiting, and it's illegal.
Now, if you're talking about the GPO printing money, that's an entirely different situation.
NGE,
For what it's worth I minored in Economics at the undergrad level. Just what laws and theories does reducing govt. spending and lowering taxes run against?
Uh... those of JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES, for a start.
How about setting up an I-R chart, starting form the consumption function? When you derive equilibrium income (that's the collective ages earned by the population) you will find that the balanced budget multiplier for increasing taxes and spending in unison is "1." IOW: +1 Billion in Taxes & +1 Billion in speding = +1 Billion in Equilibrium Income. Likewise, -1B in taxes & -1B in spending = -1B in Equilibrium Income. (You remember that?)
Now I don't know what YOU think you should get out of a GOOD economy, but one in which everyone's collective income is going DOWN sure as hell doesn't sound like it to me.
(Now, as Reagan showed us and both Bush'43 and Obama are following in, if you CUT taxes and RAISE spending you get a much bigger multiplier. Meaning that -B in Taxes & +1B in spendign could mean +5B in income (for example... I don't know off the top o' my head what the multipliers for those are.) The only problem is, it's not sustainable. You've got to pay the bills eventually. However DUE to the multiplier effect, the future cost of the stimulus will actually be well under it's current nominal value, due to the increase income (and subserquent revenue) it will generate. I won't bet the house that "it will pay for it self" but it won't be nearly as expensive as the doom-n-gloomers are predicting, and it will cost us much more to do nothing.)
NGE,
I remember Keynesian economics but I don't remember your version of equilibrium income. I think you messed it up somewhere. In your calculation you have
$1B taxes + $1B spending = $1B Equilibrium Spending. If that were so, you'd make my point. You are arguing that 1 + 1 = 1.
The multiplier effect you and the Keyensians are arguing has been shown to be a negative multiplier.
"If you look to WWII, a time of great increrased government spending, it is fairly clear that the U.S. raised spending by approximately $540B which should have, using this model, created at least $800B in GDP. However the GDP at the time only rose approximately $430B per year."
http://timothyemert.com/2009/02/03/keynsian-multiplier-the-key-to-recovery-or-a-long-road-ahead/
The problem, which you acknowledge is that the borrowed billions have to be repaid. The interest on that borrowed money, the inflation caused by the excess money in the market without increases in production, and the inefficiencies of central planning instead of free market decisions, all make the multiplier less than one.
It would be helpful if you can find any example where the multiplier worked.
Krugman took this on about a month ago:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/war-and-non-remembrance/
Krugman's argument fails because the GDP did rise.. it just did not rise enough to justify the Keynesian model that says borrowing billions and spending will stimulate the economy more than doing nothing. In fact the CBO says in the long run, this stimulus plan and Keynesian spending will slow down the GDP to a point where it would have grown faster if nothing at all was done.
"CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
"GDP" does NOT equal "Equilibrium Income." You are conflating those terms. (GDP is closer to Net CONSUMPTION, which is related to, but certainly not equal to INCOME.)
But if you look it up, derrive it, whatever... you will find the the positive INCOME multiplier of spending is higher than the negative multiplier of taxes.
It's not saying 1+1=1. It's really saying 3-2=1.
The 1's (2's, 3's...) in this case are not the dollars spent, but their repsective multipliers.
And the NET BALANCED BUDGET MULTIPLIER IS 1. You can look that up.
(You'll probably find it in the same chapter that shows how to derrive and I-R chart from the consumption function. I can do it, but it's a bit complex to show here - especially once you start making the tax/spending shifts.)
I do not believe I am conflating your EI with GDP.
I simply pointed out your formula did not make sense. I appreciate you reinterpreting it for me. However. $3B in taxes-$2B in spending = $1B in equilibrium spending doesn't really make any sense to me. What is equilibrium spending? However in the post to which I am replying you are now saying they aren't dollars which you said earlier they were, but are really multipliers.
Ok. However where do you get the figure that government taxation is 1.5 multiplier? What proof do you have that it is that high? Barro says the mulitplier is less than 1. Krugman does not, from what I can see, provide any examples where the mulitplier is more than 1.
I long ago gave up trying to look up facts for the one who is arguing with me. That my friend is your job. However it would be nice if you would provide the source that proves your multiplier has actually had a positive effect on GDP.
The only statement I ever made about the mulitplier is that the BALANCED BUDGET MULTIPLIER IS ONE. That's a fact, and it's rather easily verifying. Everything else you said was just a bunch of misquotes and misunderstanding. The other numbers I gave were just examples (numbers I pulled out of my @s$) in order to demonstrate the concept on a metaphoric level. (i.e.: Explain that what YOU SAID I said, wasn;'t what I said.) And you misunderstood even that. You are phrasing my argument in a way that doesn't even make sense to me.
Look, if you don't know what an I-R chart is, and can even keep strait the terms and variables I'm using, even when my post is right above yours, WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME?! GO BACK TO SCHOOL!
And you argument against Krugman's post WWII analysis totally misses the point as well.
It depends on what spending you're cutting and whose taxes you're lowering.
Of course, they will cut essential social services and give tax cuts to those who don't need them. So the middle class and working poor get slammed in the process.
Nobody wants to pay more. Hell, I'd like to pay ZERO taxes. However, I never bought into the Republican horsehocky that taxes are "punishment". I view taxes as the fee I pay for the privilege of living in a country that affords its citizens one of the best living standards in the world. Taxes can be too high, but I think we're a long way from that now. The top marginal rate in the 1950s was about 90%, and the 50s were quite prosperous.
Businesses pay for the privilege of operating in the most vibrant consumer economy in the world (until recently, anyway). It is government regulations, protections, banking structure, contract law, etc. that makes profitable business possible in a civilized society. Republicans like to pretend that they don't need anybody else, but they're just lying to themselves.
Social Darwinism has been tried before. Before Darwin, it was called Feudalism.
Raising taxes isn't popular but it doesn't kill growth either, i.e. Reagan
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.(doubled it actually)
This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.
This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.
And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
(sound of neocon brains exploding trying to process your post)
yes its hard for neo cons to realize that their idol actualy raised taxes on them. lol
yes because reagan came to realize that while it was against what he wanted to do, it was what was needed to do.
pros2,
Source please?
He named the bills; go look em up! I found some info in Wiki easily enough.
pros,
TEFRA was a correcton to the tax reductions enacted the previous year. it was enacted to partially offset the reduced revenue to the government due to the 1981 Economic Recover and Tax Act.
One needs to look at the combined effect of ERTA and TEFRA when judging the effects of Reagan's tax cuts/increases.
Reagan instituted a massive taxcut and we went into a bad recession. From there on out he raised taxes every year except one as I recall.
As I recall, being there at the time, we were well into a recession when Reagan was elected. The tax cut was instituted to turn the economy around, which it started to do in late 1982-early 1983. The SS premium increase, although hard to swallow at the time, was one of the changes that has allowed SS to remain viable to this date and beyond. Government spending is not all bad, but for the most part, government is a service sector job, not a value added job like manufacturing/food production. Unless we figure out a way to create more of these value added jobs in the US (and not overseas), I think the days of robust economic growth may be behind us. $200,000/job created is not bad if there are material goods figured in with the wages/benefits. Roads, electrical grids, hi speed rail service will fuel long term economic growth. File cabinets and desks will not.
The tax cut was instituted and then we went into a severe recession. Cutting interest rates and raising taxes is what got us out of it.
loonz,
I think you have your time table a bit mixed up. Please go back and look again. High inflation during the Carter years and the recession starting in 1980 were before the Reagan tax cut of 1981.
The Iranian crisis and the split in the Democratic Party were contributing factors in the electoral outcome, but the inflation that dogged the administration from its first days in office, and which crested in 1980, was probably the decisive reason for the defeat. Inflation was combined with unemployment in the last year of the Carter term. The economy fell into recession in the second quarter, the sharpest one-quarter drop in national output on record.
http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/218
You're right, of course. Unfortunately, the Republicans are so good at whipping up anti-tax hysteria among people who won't even be affected... logic just doesn't have a chance.
I mean, just look at how frothy they got over Joe the Plumber. Here's a guy who never made anywhere close to $250,000 a year in his life, but was concerned about having to pay a few hundred more dollars a year if he managed to quintuple his income.
I'd gladly pay the extra taxes to make that kind of money.
Agreed. It will have little impact on my lifestyle or my business, but being a Conservative, its just a matter of the Govt taxing with reckless abandon. And BO made no bones about it....I'm coming to get you. My taxes have gone up more under a D administration more than an R administration. I've benefitted from both, but placed more profit in my own pocket under the R's. Self interest. And you can't blame me for that. No one enjoys paying taxes and its more painful the more you owe. Everything is on principle. Stop raising taxes and reduce spending.
"No one enjoys paying taxes and its more painful the more you owe."
True enough, but it also means you've made more money, and your lifestyle has improved. You have more disposable income; you can do more and buy more. It's really hard for me to sympathize.
I don't want your sympathy. What I'm saying is that everyone benefits with more money in their own pockets. They simply know better how to spend it better than does Washington. A good example, I give you and W 1000 dollars....who would you trust more?
"What I'm saying is that everyone benefits with more money in their own pockets"
That's true, but somewhere, we have to achieve a balance between zero taxes and 100% taxes.
I know how to spend my money better on things I need personally, but I don't know how to build fighter planes or highways. I don't know how to make sure my food supply is safe, or do research on pharmaceuticals, or make sure the banks aren't ripping me off.
Do you?
Dave said "What I'm saying is that everyone benefits with more money in their own pockets."
Nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense.
In an economic crisis like we're in right now, everyone doesn't benefit if we leave more money in their pockets. That money needs to be spent. And as I have pointed out numerous times, poor people generally spend their whole paychecks. That's why it is more economically stimulative to give those people making $75,000 and less an additional $13 in their paychecks each week. They'll spend that whole $13 each and every week, and when you multiply that $13 by the millions of workers who will get it, it's a lot of money stimulating the economy, and NOT staying in their pockets.
If you gave the rich people that same amount of money, much of it would not get spent. The rich already have enough money. They'd save much of the money. We don't need more saving right now. We need more spending. We need that money to get out of people's pockets!
The rich people benefit by having more money in their pockets. "Everyone" doesn't benefit more.
The rich people wouldn't spend it, and tax cuts for the rich don't have near the stimulative effect that infrastructure building and government spending and tax cuts for the poor have.
Basic facts drive your argument into the ground!
dave, let me ask you this. if taxes were high but you got alot of services for it say like you would in England, France, Germany even.....i would think it would be worth taking a shot in the pocketbook, because i know id be getting something for my share of paying taxes.
if you got they kind of serviecs those european countries offer wouldnt you be willing to pay such taxes?
I'm admitting ignorance on the services they get in Europe. I know what services I get here, garbage is picked up, roads are plowed, etc, but that's what I pay the locals and State for. The Feds don't really do alot around here. They just blame everyone else for the shortfall and medicare/medicaid since its mandated and move on. I have my own health insurance as do my employees, so we get screwed there, too. But my taxes still increase. I think if I needed those other benefits, I wouldn't mind as much, but since I don't except for the plowed roads and the garbage, I do.
im speaking of things like free and comprehensive medical care, most major universities are free tuition as well, also low priced mass transit. things of that sort.
Free medical care and free college? Who's paying for it? Taxpayers are...no such thing as free. Those doctors and professors have to be paid somehow. They are not doing it for free. Taxes are probably covering it. Am I right?
Of course nothing is free. Some European countries have very high tax rates. However, they don't have to pay a third of their income for Health Insurance as many people here do, and they don't have to save money for their kid's college fund.
So how about the families that do not have kids, whom will never attend College, so those individuals should pay for others kids to go to college?
Do you want Americans to compete favorably in this global economy or do you want to keep falling behind the rest of the world?
Even if you pay for others kids to go to college, you're making an investment in the nation's future.
You're a rightie, you should know about investments, shouldn't you?
Oh, you only care about investments where you MAKE MONEY. That's right. I forgot, you love money more than anything else.
Common, I do care about the investment of the future and education; I do not think the public schools do a good job now with teaching, why would we trust the government with the colleges. I also agree in allowing a voucher program, if a school is doing a good job teaching they would not worry about losing students. Let the kids choose the school they attend. Most Universities will tell you most kids coming into college now are not well prepared, so if the government took over the University programs we would have adults not ready for the work force and be even future behind in a global economy. If we followed the school programs in China, India or Japan, you all would start screaming about lack of diversity training. In India, they teach the basics in education, reading, writing and mathematics. Once a student reaches a certain grade or age they must pass continued education exams or go into the trade schools. I do not see you all screaming about India, China and Japan poor, since you all think they have great school systems. It is the same in England. If we did that here, you all would scream some excuse of why they should not be put in those classes. You all will never be happy with what you have, so why try and make you happy.
Nice strawman. No one is talking about the wonders of educational systems in other countries, or that we should adopt their policies. Furthermore, no one said that the educational system in this country was the best, but it could be if we all began looking at it in a different way. No one was talking about the poor educational state our college freshmen are in once they walk through university doors. Try to keep up without your strawmen. You don't need the strawman crutch f you use your brain.
It was mentioned that some European countries pay for university education. It's a progressive idea which puts the people and the country above money. Think about all of the kids who get to go to college, even though their parents couldn't pay for it. Think about how educated their workforce will be because underprivileged children were able to get a college education. This is not about diversity. This is about making sure your future generations live, work and prosper in country better off than the way YOU found it. Your greed doesn't do that. Your greed only ensures that you have what you want, not giving a damn about anyone else.
Meanwhile here in the U.S., we have people on the Right saying, "Well, the world needs ditch diggers too! Screw 'em all. I've got mine."
Nice way to ignore the actual point of the comment.
Nice dodge and weave.
Typical right-wing blowhard...
You have not made a case for "reckless abandon." But since tha last "conservative" President spent (and "misplaced") money with actual reckless abandon, and made sure it was not included in the budget. taxes will have to be raised far more than they ever will be by this Administration to get even close to "reckless abandon."
The previous eight years have major consequences. The fact that you don't want to see them resolved should not affect the actual resolution.
Fair enough. We have a philosophical disagreement. I can live with that. In fact I'd even say it's a good thing. My point was only that McConnell's argument doesn't hold water.
Ed Zachary!
This is the crap that Americans are being fed, Uniaddress. Class warfare waged by the wealthy elites, and they're able to recruit millions of working and middle-class people to fight against their own interests and the interest of the country.
I linked to this "Letter from Granddad" propaganda email on the second item today (Scarborough thread), and it's amazing that the people who forwarded it to me will defend it as making a great point, even while admitting that it's BS.
Do you think, just maybe, that the 'richest' small businesses, the ones making over $250,000 a year are the ones that create the most jobs and employ the most people? And now that their costs will increase people may lose their jobs or new jobs will not be created?
This is why many people who make $50,000 are against soaking the 'rich' because they know that it may wind affecting them. These people are smart enough to realize this, something which can't be said of the leftist morons who post here.
Please don't think that Dick2012 would understand that. He has his right-wing talking points to parrot.
Brrrraaaawwwwkkkk Polly want a stimulus package????
What are you talking about? Small businesses that file under Chapter S are filing as individuals.
Dick2012, I can't recall if I've ever asked you this question, but I've put it to many wingnuts here, and have never had it answered.
Do you own a business? If so, have you ever let an employee go, or decided not to hire a new employee because your taxes were raised?
Do you work for somebody else who has done these things?
Do you know anybody personally who has?
Friend of a friend?
anecdotal?
Fictitious right wing email claiming to?
An example , with the essential numbers in revenues/expenses that is feasible?
I'm going to copy and save these questions, as I'm starting to feel sort of stoopid continuing to ask you nuts the same thing when I know you don't have an answer.
But it will be pretty impressive if you come up with a response.
Hello? anybody? Wingnuts, this is one of your sacraments being questioned, come on.
If you are feeling stoopid, it makes perfect sense...
I have known several business owners over the years who have SHUT DOWN completely because of increases in taxes.
I do not currently own business, but know many owners in my community. They want government and confiscatory taxation -- at ALL LEVELS -- off of their backs.
Your answer is very vague, but interesting.
Pretending that what most conservatives say is true, that high taxes are used to punish the most "successful", that would mean that you know several business owners who threw away massive profits rather than pay taxes. Sounds like maybe they didn't have any business running a business.