- ObamaCare: By the Numbers
Thursday, March 18, 2010
- Interior Department Hides Data, Pushes Back Offshore Drilling Plan
- It May be Sunshine Week, But There Are Dark Clouds over the Slaughter House (CFA Site »)
- Bill McCollum Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Florida Governor's Race
- Sen. Lincoln (D-Ark.) New Ad: I'm not working for the unions
- Making Laws Should Be Transparent
- CFA in Washington Times: Read the Bill! (CFA Site »)
- How the FCC Plans to Tax the Internet (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Study: Health Care Legislation Will Cost up to 700,000 Jobs by 2019
- Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Government Health Bill to be Voted on by House
- Testimony Before U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Labor
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
- The Second Annual Pat Quinn Income Tax Increase Proposal
- How the FCC Plans to Tax the Internet
- Oh, the Irony! It's Sunshine Week, So Let's Push Healthcare Bill Through Without Even Voting On It!? (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
- Wisconsin Gubernatorial Candidate Scott Walker Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Why Do We Get Health Insurance from Our Employers Anyway? (ASA Site »)
- The Enormous Price Tag of Government Run Healthcare (ASA Site »)
- Call for Sunshine Week: "Just Give Us The Earmark Data" (CFA Site »)
- PA-12 Special Election Update: Tim Burns Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- How Government Accounting Works
- ATRF Analysis: The Importance of International Tax Competition
- How Tax Preparation "Simplification" Will Lead to Tax Hikes
- GAO: Implementation of Coburn-Obama Still Lacking in Some Areas (CFA Site »)
Monday, March 15, 2010
- Latest Developments In The Fight To Stop A Govt Internet Takeover
- China Buys Our Debt, We Give Them Renewable Energy Stimulus Jobs...Seems About Right
- ATR Urges Governor McDonnell to Sign Bill to Abolish State Run Tax Filing
- Saving the Sea Turtles...But at What Cost? (PRA Site »)
- Craig Miller Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in FL-24
- The Economics of #StimulusFail
- Missouri Unions and Andy Stern on the Same Page: Raise Taxes (AWF Site »)
- Obamacare, Free Trade, & Our Economic Prosperity
Friday, March 12, 2010
- Rusty Bowers Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge for AZ-01 Race
- Ask Your Virginia Legislator to Vote "NO" on Any Budget Containing Higher Taxes
-
ATR Supports H.R. 4781, the
"Keeping American Businesses
Competitive Act of 2010" - Ronald Reagan Legacy Project Urges Naming of California High School After Reagan
- Democrats Attempt to Subvert Congress in Hopes of Carbon Regulation
- Economic Issues Dominate at the Bloggers Briefing
- Pushback Against EPA’s Attempts to Regulate Carbon Emissions Grows
- Minnesota Gubernatorial Candidate Running on a Platform of Tax Hikes
Thursday, March 11, 2010
- Michigan Jobs Ain't What They Used To Be...Unless You Work For The Government
- ATR and CFA Support Earmark Moratorium
- Voter Fraud in the Name of Tax Hikes
- Ballooning Deficits in Greece Foreshadowing Future for the U.S.? (ASA Site »)
- Green Jobs FAIL
- The Evergreen Tax and Fee Spree
- ATR Staffer Testifies Before U.S. House Energy & Commerce Select Committee
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
- The endemic rot in government run health care
- The Debt Panel's 800-lb. Gorilla: Why Andy Stern Stands Out
- The Left Agree: Obamacare Ushers In Their Radical Ideological Agenda
- We Ought Focus On Cutting Taxes & Spending, Not Deficits
- The Debt Panel's 800-lb. Gorilla (AWF Site »)
-
Does the Obamacare Investment Surtax
Apply to Capital Gains? - ATR Urges Opposition to Sen. Isakson Pension Bailout
- Taxpayers to Legislators: Clean Virginia Budget of Taxes
- ATR Supports the Georgia JOBS Act
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
- ATR Urges Utah Governor Herbert to Veto Tax Increase
- More on the VAT
- Public Sector Jobs
- How 550,000 jobs were destroyed by the minimum wage hike
- How Obamacare Will Hurt Poor Women & Children Most
- Federal Workers Make $11,000 More Than Private Sector Workers, and There’s More of Them (AWF Site »)
Monday, March 8, 2010
- Legislation Introduced to Put Ronald Reagan on the $50 Bill
- Pledge Signer Wins Illinois Republican Gubernatorial Primary
- "Net Neutrality" To Kill Jobs
- NY Supreme Court Votes to Evict Residents and Close Businesses (PRA Site »)
- California US Senate Candidates Square Off in First Debate
Friday, March 5, 2010
- ATR and CFA Support the Spending Limit Amendment
Thursday, March 4, 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
Related Articles
ObamaCare: By the Numbers - Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:45 PM
Obamacare In Venn Diagrams - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:23 PM
Interior Department Hides Data, Pushes Back Offshore Drilling Plan - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:49 PM
Study: Health Care Legislation Will Cost up to 700,000 Jobs by 2019 - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:21 AM
Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Government Health Bill to be Voted on by House - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:05 AM













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
(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