We have heard the conservatives and ultra-rich moaning about the tragedies that will sink us all if the tax breaks for the rich end. I don't know whether they are incredibly stupid or think that we are.
In my writings and notes over the last seven years of trying to spread credible internet information supported by fact I have repeatedly urged that NOTHING including what I send should be taken as absolute truth. Get a second opinion from another separate source, give the information the "smell test." Does the information sound plausible or does it sound like a fairy tale? This test is using your brain and experience and does no more than keep you from being a gullible blind sheep like so many of our Countrymen. Humans evolved brains for a reason and not using yours places you at great risk of being fooled, manipulated and used. We see it everyday when we listen to politicians.
It is the continuing and repeated harangues specifically on three fronts that I want to address. One is ending the tax give-away for the rich, Social Security and the other is the inheritance tax.
It is not new to create a fake story to fool the gullible into agreeing that giving the very rich a tax break is a help to the middle class. In President Reagan's time the administration wanted an acceptable way of passing tax breaks for the wealthy. David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and the Budget called up an old and failed concept called variously, trickle down economics, supply side economics, voodoo economics, Reaganomics and a few other synonyms but the offered explanation was illustrated by a story about a horse and a sparrow that says if you feed your horse enough grain some will fall or be passed through the horse for the sparrow. I call it something else.
The strangest part of all this to me is that they got anyone to believe any of it but they managed to get quite a following even though minimal investigation would have shown that this concept has never worked and Mr. Stockman even admitted the plan was just to give more to the rich without upsetting the masses. Well it didn't improve the economy then and Reagan left the Country in one term with a larger debt than all before him combined, but the ultra wealthy were very happy. Reagan cut the marginal rate from 70% to 28%. Many have forgotten that as late as the Eisenhower presidency the top rate was as high as 90%.
If you remember G.W. Bush struggled through that, "fool me twice", speech disaster but again wanted a more tax breaks for the rich and promised that would pay for itself in greater revenue for the Treasury by stimulating the economy. G.W. Bush left office with one of the two greatest debt increases in history along with Reagan. One more time it failed to do anything but convey funds from the middle class to the ultra rich which was the intended purpose although not the admitted one, Citizens seemed oblivious even though this con had been pulled just a few decades earlier with the same results.
The ultra-rich always seem to whine about being mistreated and how high taxes for them hurt the "little people", but more on this shortly. First two more facts. The middle class for the most part earn wages based on the job as in management, or by the hour for the blue collar set. This group pays from the highest rate tables. So hard work and sweat and you may have to pay 25% to 35% top rate just for Federal Income Tax on all your income. Most of the ultra-rich get large portions of their income from capital gains for which they did not have to expend any time or sweat and are taxed at a top rate of 15% Federal Tax. This represents a huge break for the ultra-rich not available for "little people."
The newest scam is that not giving the ultra-rich a tax break will cost the economy jobs may make sense if one doesn't think but just minimal strain on your brain cells will tell you this is just a rerun on the same scam done recently by Reagan and Bush which helped create the widest spread between ultra-rich and middle (low) class since the Great Depression and almost did it again in 2007.
This seems to always relate to "small business" and $250,000. What is "small business"? The definition seems to depend on the group being scammed. Conservatives want us to conjure an image of a hard working couple in their early 60s who have 4 employees and have been building this business for forty years. Nice image and a touching expression of Americana but do you really think this business produces a $250,000 profit?
A "small business" is defined by Wikipedia as: A small business is a business that is privately owned and operated, with a small number of employees and relatively low volume of sales. Small businesses are normally privately owned corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. The legal definition of "small" varies by country and by industry. In the United States the Small Business Administration establishes small business size standards on an industry-by-industry basis, but generally specifies a small business as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most non-manufacturing businesses. (Pretty vague)
For SEC purposes, small businesses are defined as domestic companies with revenues of under $25 million, and not investment companies.
This is a business that has one to 50 employees.
An "S" type corporation.
The Small Business Administration defines it as: 500 or fewer employees for most manufacturing and mining industries (a few industries permit up to 750, 1000 or 1,500 employees)
100 or fewer employees for all wholesale trade industries
$6 million per year in sales receipts for most retail and service industries (with some exceptions)
1 | 2