Moore brings small business tax falsehood back to Fox
On Fox News, Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore advanced a long-time Republican falsehood by claiming that "the big problem" with small business tax credits in the proposed jobs bill "is that a lot of small businesses are looking ahead at what is going to happen next year with the big increases on tax increases when the Bush tax cuts go away." However, despite Moore's suggestion that the Obama administration's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers would affect a large percentage of small businesses, in fact, it would apply to fewer than 1.3 percent of all those who declare small business income.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the February 8 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
GREGG JARRETT (co-host): Look, Steve, aren't those elements the kinds of things that Republicans normally embrace? And won't they be hard-pressed to object?
MOORE: Well, this package is certainly a lot better than the first one because it does involve some incentives for small businesses to hire, which I'm obviously very much in favor of. Two-thirds of all the jobs come from small businesses. The problem is, Gregg, at the very same time they're talking about new tax credits for small businesses to hire workers and so on -- by the way, which is something we tried in the 1970s; it didn't work too well -- the big problem here is that a lot of small businesses are looking ahead at what's going to happen next year with the big increases on tax increases when the Bush tax cuts go away. So I would be -- I think President Obama would be much better off just saying, look, we're just going to make sure that the tax rates that are in place right now don't go up because most of the businesses that get hammered by the tax increase next year will be the very same small businesses the president is trying to help in this package.
Obama's tax proposal would only raise taxes on fewer than 1.3 percent of those who claim small business income
Obama's proposal would end Bush tax cuts for individuals making over
$200,000, families making over $250,000. The 2011 White House budget
proposal states that
"the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families
earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to
reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent
of all households who make less than $250,000." The budget plan lists several
"Upper-Income Tax Provisions" that would roll back the Bush tax cuts
for individuals with income greater than $200,000 and families with income
greater than $250,000.
Fewer than 1.3 percent of
those who claim small business income would be affected by expiration of Bush
tax cuts to wealthy taxpayers. Despite Moore's claim that "most
of the businesses" would "get hammered by the tax increase next
year," according to the Tax Policy Center's table of
2009 tax returns that reported small-business income, 457,000 of those returns -- or 1.3 percent of
them -- are in the top two income tax brackets,
which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected by Obama's
proposal to end those Bush tax cuts.
Moore revives GOP talking point previously parroted by the media
Claim previously advanced during presidential campaign, again in early 2009. As Media Matters for America documented, in July 2008, several media outlets uncritically advanced Sen. John McCain false claim 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 February and March 2009, several media figures adopted this false Republican talking point or allowed the falsehood to go unchallenged.
But, no... they'd rather whine.
I guess they expected to already have Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority" in place by now.
That's why they were passed as temporary with an end date - if they worked to just lower the surpluses a relatively small amount, then they'd be extended.
Too large surpluses were seen to be troublesome.
One came before 9/11, and one came AFTER we had already gone to war - the only time we've ever given tax cuts during a war. The second round was supposed to be stimulative.
Have any hatred for the wealth redistribution TO the rich?
Have any hatred for people keeping more of the money they earn? What is your formula to "spread the wealth"? Who gets to keep what percentage of their income?
We don't hate rich people. We think that the progressive tax structure is the best tax structure, and we need more tax revenues coming in, and so the best way to increase those revenues is to repeal the tax cuts on the top 2% of Americans - the ones who are wealthy, since they'll still have plenty of disposable income. For example, if they make $350,000, they'll pay about $40,000 in taxes on the income from $250,000 to $350,000 on their taxes in 2012 instead of about $3000 less than that this year. So, they have $60,000 to spend from that $100,000 increased income or $63,000 - it doesn't really hurt them at all! They still have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend!
What we don't hate is poor people. We want them protected and helped. Contrast that with the viewpoint of many on the right....
So, if you want to accurately describe a group that exhibits 'hate', you'd need to look at your side of your aisle, not ours.
My god, that is such an ignorant and stupid remark. We don't base tax policy on what we think is some appropriate amount of money to live on. Because you have absolutely no idea how much money anyone has as disposable income unless you are privy to their individual financial situation, so don't say something so incredibly moronic as that.
The whole progressive tax structure is based upon the understanding that rich people don't spend all of their disposable income on necessities, and poorer families do!
People sure DO make choices about what they spend their money on.
That doesn't change what I said though - that rich people still have plenty of disposable income after paying an additional $3000 or so in taxes on $100,000 in income. We DO have "an idea" how much money people have as disposable income with one marginal tax rate versus another. I think you don't understand what 'disposable income' means. Look it up and get a clue.
The person making an ignorant, stupid remark? That'd be you.
Just to illustrate how simple and asinine your comments are, and how we do not base tax policy on what we think people need to live on. If we did, we would tax two people who make the exact same salary different due to their financial situation. We would not have tax brackets based on income but rather expenses.
Your knee-jerk liberal reaction to taxation, or rather punishment, is to soak people with just enough left over to live on. I understand that is how a liberal mind works and you rationalize your opinion on that basis. Thank god your liberal mind doesn't run anything more than your own life, because the rest of us don't need it.
Colleague A pays interest on a mortgage, installed energy-efficient windows in her house, and pays monthly child care costs. Colleague B rents and is childless. They make the exact same salary. And yet, because of the expenses noted above, we tax them "different." ly. You know, due to their financial situation.
For someone whose "mind" repeatedly proves itself in these comments to prefer underprepared, ignorant, and easily disproved arguments, you sure are quick to paint liberal minds (you know, the ones repeatedly pointing out your ignorance and underpreparedness by easily disproving your arguments) with a broad brush. As to this:
...you'd better hope you have a liberal mind preparing your taxes for you, since you plainly don't understand how they work.
In other words if we determine it takes $60k a year to live in LA, then no matter what your salary is your taxes will reflect that as your end dollar result.
It's asinine and ridiculous. No wonder you and DollySue embrace it beyond the fantasy it is.
The progressive tax rates are fair because they DO recognize that richer people can afford to pay a larger share of their income in taxes and still have plenty of money leftover.
You are in outer space on this one, I guess just to derail the thread, as usual.
"We sure do exactly that. We DO base tax policy on what we think people need to live on" - you, a few minutes ago.
Are you that shameless a liar that you don't think we can see exactly what you just said, or are you just trying to be slick and backtrack away from such a blatantly stupid statement to make? Which is it Sue?
In any event, I never said we don't tax people based on their income. But you said we tax people based on what they can afford to live on, as in your example that wealthy people still have plenty of disposable income and dollars to spend so that is reason to tax them more, because it won't hurt them.
You'd do better to just leave an idiotic statement you make alone, the more you try and wiggle and worm your way around it the more ridiculous you look.
Tax policy IS based upon what people need to live on.
The person who almost always looks ridiculous here is you. Last week you had a couple of lucid hours. I was hopeful that you had realized that throwing away all of your credibility was foolish, but now I see that once again, your personal animus is so strong that you can't control it!
Dishonest hack that he is.
We sure do exactly that. We DO base tax policy on what we think people need to live on - that's why we have stuff like head of household statuses, to give people who might not have direct dependents a break so they'll have more to live on. That's why we also have the Earned Income Credit, which helps lower income families get money back!
The whole progressive tax structure is based upon the understanding that rich people don't spend all of their disposable income on necessities, and poorer families do!
"Now that you've dismantled the meaning of what I wrote, I'm going to call you names because you didn't address the meaning I meant to write! Fool!"
If a rich guy buys a boat someone made that boat. Those people ordered the materials to make it that someone else made. Or when they go out to eat, there is the wait staff, the cook, ect. They also pay taxes. That's how to increase how much money the government brings in.
More liberal con games.
Wow, that is quite the comment, first calling us stupid and then saying we look like the type of people that need public assistance. Readers can determine for themselves but it's pretty obvious how you feel about those people on public assistance. Wow.
Rrriiigghhht. And I'm the Queen of England.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Yes, they are.
So fine, instead of getting the IRS involved here with raising taxes, let's just take the difference and do an automatic bank withdrawal from those affected and go directly to paying off our debt? I mean, those that support the elimination of these tax cuts should have no problem with this, cuts out the middleman and makes sure this money goes directly to reducing the deficit.
I wonder how many liberal politicians would be in favor of this "direct deposit"? My guess would be none.
Prior to Reagan, the highest tax bracket was anywhere from 50%-90%... that was the tax code from 1909 to 1982. The result of Reagan's policies was the march down the road to debt
The notion that "tax cuts for the top 2% of this country stimulates the economy" is the lie that has been told so often people believe it to be so. There is no evidence that this is true... all that these tax cuts have done is to increase the deficit and put us further in debt.
There is the notion of fair share of taxes and the top 2% would have you think that every person should put in an equal share... but the progressive mindset is that those who have the most should pay more than their fair share in order to help those without.
From a sheer selfish perspective, unless you are in the upper 1.5% (Make more than $400,000 in gross income, remember that $250K is AGI) then there is no reason to oppose the tax cut, but there sure seems to be a lot of people who rather see the top 1.5% continue to take more money away from the rest of us than makes sense.
And there you have the liberal mindset on income redistribution in a nutshell. Please tell me why those without have any right to the earnings of anyone else? They don't. And that is where liberal logic on taxes always fails.
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=progressive+tax
It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. The tax supports the administration of their country which provides the sort of operating environment in which they are able to earn their wages in the first place. Even when paying a higher marginal rate on the top end of their earnings, they will still take home more than people who are paid less with a tax rate anything up to 100%.
Progressive taxation forms a buffer for the lowest earners in society. This is because the lowest tax band will apply to earnings beneath an initial threshold. Therefore, the less one earns, the higher percentage of one’s pay is not taxable. A certain “block” at the bottom of each income may be tax free altogether, and by definition this will form a much larger proportion of a low earner’s income than it would in the income of a high earner. This protection for the poorest is important, because most countries also operate customs tariffs and sales taxes, which tend to hit the poor more than the rich in terms of the proportion of their income going in indirect taxation; progressive direct taxation redresses the balance.
Progressive taxation encourages social cohesion. It sends out a clear policy signal that income and wealth are social means which can be used for the collective good. It also reduces the disparity in net pay and so lessens the economic divisions between different members of society.
Progressive taxation should increase the total tax take. This means that increased funds are available for spending on worthwhile socially beneficial programmes, such as education, health, environmental protection, etc.
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=264
Please tell me why you are entitled to my money, or why I am entitled to yours?
You can dance around it with all sorts of meaningless liberal double speak gobblydegoook nonsense such as vague platitudes as "worthwhile socially beneficial programmes", but that isn't answering the question.
Liberals never have answered that direct question, they can't.
What about the top 2% owning 99.99% of the wealth? Does that seem healthy? We have anti-trust laws to keep the free market, but have the laws we put in place for the individual seem to be breaking down.
Right now the top 2% have some 80% of the wealth in this country and the money keeps flowing to to the top... at what point does it stop? Or does it just keep flowing?
Estate tax? Income tax? are all mechanisms to try to slow the wealthiest of this country from disenfranchising the remaining 98%, but the Republicans keep bringining them down.
Warren Buffet thinks the Estate Tax should not be repealed because the wealth gap is already too big.
So to directly answer your direct question.
There is a massive gap between the haves and the have nots and the further widening of this gap is detrimental to our society. When 0.1% of this country owns 99.99% of the wealth we will have failed as a society. The US is not a game of Monopoly. Those who are at the top of the financial chain have should have an enlightened self-interest when it comes to this, but when they don't, we need to have a mechanism. It's the only way that a civilized society will remain civilized.
Still haven't answered my question.
Is ten people owning 99.9% of the wealth something we should encourage or discourage?
I think I know the answer.
It is enlightened self-interest to not want to have a sector of society that is so poor and down-trodden that they become a threat.
It is not that it's the poor's wealth to begin with, but if you take away everything they have then the entire fabric of society is at risk.
Or do you think it's healthy for a society to continue to encourage the concentration of its wealth in the top fraction?
I'm not saying that they are entitled to it, I'm saying that you need to think beyond the immediate self gratification and toward the larger picture of a health society.
What happens then?
We have had a progressive tax system for over 100 years and I have yet to hear anyone reasonably say "I'm not going to work hard for more money because of the taxes"
Bill Gates still seemed to work pretty hard.
Warren Buffet thinks taxes are too low.
Answer: It's because of the laws of our society. If you are in need and apply for aid, and if you are eligible, you get benefits. Crying about people being entitled to your money isn't going to change how our society works. It just makes you a whiner.
Why don't you just pretend that every penny you pay in taxes goes towards the border fence.
And if the laws change to effectively tax you for 99% of everything you earn to pay for others' needs, will you still feel the same way?
"Crying about people being entitled to your money isn't going to change how our society works. It just makes you a whiner."
He wasn't crying - he was asking a question.
- The tax supports the administration of their country which provides the sort of operating environment in which they are able to earn their wages in the first place.
- This protection for the poorest is important, because most countries also operate customs tariffs and sales taxes, which tend to hit the poor more than the rich in terms of the proportion of their income going in indirect taxation; progressive direct taxation redresses the balance.
- It sends out a clear policy signal that income and wealth are social means which can be used for the collective good. It also reduces the disparity in net pay and so lessens the economic divisions between different members of society.
- This means that increased funds are available for spending on worthwhile socially beneficial programmes, such as education, health, environmental protection, etc.
(I am sure there is an argument against this but I probably won't read it) :)
That's partly true. The other part is the increasing size and spending of government, something both the Dems and Repubs have been guilty of doing. The only major difference is that the Repubs tax you a little less.
By what standard? The same could be said for seahawk 123's comment below:
"No, it's socialism that doesn't work. It's failed everytime it's tried."
Sweden (all of Scandanavia)
France (elements)
Japan
I want tax increases on the rich because they work every single time, and because nothing bad has ever happened when a rich person got their taxes raised.
1993 - raise taxes on the rich - 20 million jobs
2001 - cut taxes on the rich - 5 million jobs
Taxes were 70% under Nixon and not one single rich person felt the slightest pain. Now we're fighting about whether to go to 40%. It's insane.
Smack the wingers with reality. It shuts them up and makes them run away. (Or it makes them write a response that repeats their theory and fairness arguments while failing to address any of the reality presented, as the first conservative to respond to this post will do.)
They argued that it wasn't right to call that elite group wealthy!
I swear.
The facts I posted simply can't be responded to. At all. Right-wingers will "line back up" under a different thread, where they hope those facts won't show up again.
Go ahead, pat yourself on the back for your "facts", go for it.
If for some reason you do choose to address the facts, be sure to include that 70% vs 40% one. It's a doozy.
(For those playing along at home, "other factors" = things that are much more significant than conservative economic theory.)
What if rich people leave an area because taxes are too high, thereby lowering the tax revenues for that area? Would you consider that bad?
"1993 - raise taxes on the rich - 20 million jobs
2001 - cut taxes on the rich - 5 million jobs"
Are you trying to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship here?
"Taxes were 70% under Nixon and not one single rich person felt the slightest pain."
Is this a provable fact or just your opinion?
"Are you trying to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship here?" -- yes, because the reason we fight hard over tax policy is because we think it's very, very important. If it's very, very important, then it's sure to dominate if we implement it on a large scale for a long period of time. If "other factors" caused a 4/1 job difference opposite from your theory across 300 million people and 8 years, then your theory is too insignificant to fight about.
"Is this a provable fact or just your opinion?" -- Provable in the aggregate given the long decades of great economies with jobs that happened under high taxes. Provable in the individual given that conservative messaging has never put forth an iconic "put-upon businessman" figure comparable to the fictitious welfare queen that built Reagan's presidency. (Plus the fact that neither you nor anyone you know can cite an instance. Plus the fact that having a lot of money means that you can buy stuff.)
Of course not, when the wealthy are crushed by a horrendous tax burden, the economy flourishes. Crush those rich people and we all win. Wow, who knew?
Let's remove the hyperbole from his statement.
The right would like everyone to believe that when the wealthy are subjected to a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, which will raise their tax rates about 3% ($3000 in additional taxes for every $100,000 in income), it stifles the economy and leads to job losses.
But leave it to you to document how inadequate your reading comprehension is and how insincere you are in two sentences or less.