INDEX
- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
New Surtax on Small Employers in
House Democrat Health Scheme
Will Endanger Millions of Jobs
From Ryan Ellis on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:27 PM
- One of the most economically-destructive aspects of the House Democrat health bill is the new 5.4 percent “surtax” on adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeding $1 million ($500,000 if other than married filing jointly). This is found on page 336 in H.R. 3962. When combined with the top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent due to take effect in 2011, this provision has the same effect as creating a brand new top tax bracket of 45 percent (and without even an inflation adjustment over time).
- The House Democrat leadership will tell you that this is a new tax on “the rich.” This is absurd. The truly rich will re-arrange their finances in such as way as to never pay the tax. It’s much more likely that this tax will hit small and medium-size employers, who pay taxes on their owners’ 1040 forms. At this level of income, most unincorporated businesses take the form of partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations, whose taxes are paid at the owner level.
- According to the IRS (Table 1.4 of the Statistics of Income), these small business employers earned a net $414 billion in 2007. Of this, some $236 billion—57 percent—was earned in households with AGI of $1 million or more. The 5.4 percent surtax will tax these businesses some $13 billion per year. That money has to come from somewhere, and the answer is “jobs.”
- What does this mean for jobs? The partnerships and S-corps that earn more than $1 million per year are the ones that have enough capital to employ people. Assuming that most of these are the firms which employ 20 to 499 people (any larger and they probably are incorporated, any smaller and it’s other businesses), the Census Bureau Statistics of U.S. Businesses reports that 626,000 of these small employers gave jobs to 38.6 million Americans (about one-third of everyone employed), and paid out an average of $36,000 in salary in 2006.
- The new 5.4 percent surtax can be expected to raise $13 billion per year in new taxes from these successful small and mid-size employers. By way of illustration, if this tax were paid for entirely by cutting wages for these 38.6 million employees, the average wage would decline by over $300 per year—another hidden cost to the radical Pelosi-Rangel-Obama plan to create a government healthcare system.
Permalink | Email | Print | Tags: TAXES, HEALTHCARE














Comments
Yeah...I still don't get this argument. Employee salaries are business expenses, which means they come out of the business' taxable income before any profits would be reported on the business owner's Schedule C. So what we're talking about are "small businesses" that make a *profit* of $500,000 and are sole proprietorships or S-Corps owned by a single person or $1 million and are wholly-owned by joint-filers. As a rule of thumb you'd be talking about companies making $5-10 million a year.
>> Todd Stauffer Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:53 PM Report Comment
(Cont.) By definition if you put those profits on your Schedule C it means you didn't hire anyone with that money. It also means you're pretty comfortable. And, if you're putting that much on a Schedule C and you've got a business that could grow, it seems like it's time to change your corporate structure to a C Corp or LLC so you could leave profits in the business. So, such a wealthy entrepreneur might not *like* the tax, but if cutting jobs would cut into their profits *more* than a marginal 5% on net income over $1m, then they'd be fools to cut those jobs.
>> Todd Stauffer Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:56 PM Report Comment