Tax Increases and Small Businesses
Let's consider the ramifications of a Democratic House or Senate on tax policy. It's a guarantee that we'd see tax increases if Democrats controlled the House or Senate, crippling small businesses that file their taxes as individuals.
Small businesses that make $200,000+ would have their marginal tax rates jump from 36% to 44%, a minimum increase of $16,000 annually. A friend of mine who is a small businessman would fit into that group. He recently said that he pays almost that much for his family's health care.
The thing is that President Bush wouldn't even get a veto on this tax increase because this tax increase would happen as part of the tax cut legislation's sunset provisions. Democrats have railed against tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 or 2% seemingly forever. It's a guarantee that Democrats would simply let those cuts to expire, adding mightily to those families' expenses.
That type of tax increase would almost guarantee an economic downturn, if not a recession. During the Clinton Administration, Demagogue-in-Chief Al Gore decried the "draconian cuts" in the school lunch program that would starve children. In that situation, the Republican Congress was just talking about slowing the rate of growth in the program.
Why isn't this seen as a "draconian cut" to families' incomes? Isn't it important to keep small businesses flourishing? How could this type of tax increase not cause small businesses to delay expansions to their businesses? Why wouldn't this draconian tax increase cause more people to drop off the insurance rolls? I'd guarantee that some small business owners would stop paying a portion of their employees' health care premiums.
Republicans who stay home this November would essentially be voting for a recession. They'd be voting for tax increases. That's hardly an intelligent action.
It's time for Republicans to start thinking about all of the ramifications their 'protest votes' would have on the economy. It certainly wouldn't have a positive effect.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 28, 2006 5:39 PM
No comments.
Small businesses that make $200,000+ would have their marginal tax rates jump from 36% to 44%, a minimum increase of $16,000 annually. A friend of mine who is a small businessman would fit into that group. He recently said that he pays almost that much for his family's health care.
The thing is that President Bush wouldn't even get a veto on this tax increase because this tax increase would happen as part of the tax cut legislation's sunset provisions. Democrats have railed against tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 or 2% seemingly forever. It's a guarantee that Democrats would simply let those cuts to expire, adding mightily to those families' expenses.
That type of tax increase would almost guarantee an economic downturn, if not a recession. During the Clinton Administration, Demagogue-in-Chief Al Gore decried the "draconian cuts" in the school lunch program that would starve children. In that situation, the Republican Congress was just talking about slowing the rate of growth in the program.
Why isn't this seen as a "draconian cut" to families' incomes? Isn't it important to keep small businesses flourishing? How could this type of tax increase not cause small businesses to delay expansions to their businesses? Why wouldn't this draconian tax increase cause more people to drop off the insurance rolls? I'd guarantee that some small business owners would stop paying a portion of their employees' health care premiums.
Republicans who stay home this November would essentially be voting for a recession. They'd be voting for tax increases. That's hardly an intelligent action.
It's time for Republicans to start thinking about all of the ramifications their 'protest votes' would have on the economy. It certainly wouldn't have a positive effect.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 28, 2006 5:39 PM
No comments.
