Republicans Object to Millionaire Surtax but Millionaires Don't

• BoatShoes

  For some reason all of these millionaires opposed to the surtax aren't speaking up! You have to love how John Thune's statements are totally in contrast to what the real business owners say.
  

  For the second week in a row, the Senate on Thursday voted down proposals to extend the payroll tax holiday through next year. In the case of the Democrats' proposal, Republicans objected to the "millionaires surtax" that would be used to pay for it.Ever since the idea of the surtax was introduced weeks ago, Republicans in Congress have railed against it, arguing that it is a direct hit on small-business owners and other job creators.
  The argument is that many small-business owners report company profits on their individual taxes because of the way their businesses are structured. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., says the surtax would hurt their ability to hire.
  
  "It's just intuitive that, you know, if you're somebody who's in business and you get hit with a tax increase, it's going to be that much harder, I think, to make investments that are going to lead to job creation," says Thune.
  We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
  So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to. A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.
  So next we put a query on Facebook. And several business owners who said they would be affected by the "millionaires surtax" responded.
  "It's not in the top 20 things that we think about when we're making a business hire," said Ian Yankwitt, who owns Tortoise Investment Management.
  Tortoise is a boutique investment firm in White Plains, N.Y. Yankwitt has 10 employees and in recent years has done a lot of hiring.
  As a result, Yankwitt says he's had many conversations about hiring, "both with respect to specific people, with respect to whether we should hire one junior person or two, whether we should hire a senior person."
  He says his ultimate marginal tax rate "didn't even make it on the agenda."
  Yankwitt says deciding to bring on another employee is all about return on investment. Will adding another person to the payroll make his company more successful?
  For Jason Burger, the motivation is similar.
  "If my taxes go up, I have slightly less disposable income, yes," said Burger, co-owner of CSS International Holdings, a global infrastructure contractor. "But that has nothing to do with what my business does. What my business does is based on the contracts that it wins and the demand for its services."
  Burger says his Michigan-based company is hiring like crazy, and he'd be perfectly willing to pay the surtax.
  "It's only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success," said Burger.
  For the record, both Burger and Yankwitt have made campaign contributions to Democrats in the past, but they say their views on the surtax are about the economics of their businesses and not their politics.
  And they're not alone.
  "I, like any other American, especially a business owner, I want to make as much money as I can and I want to keep as much money in my pocket as I can, but I also believe in the greater good," says Deborah Schwarz, who owns LAC Group, an information management firm with offices nationwide and in London.
  Surtax or no, Schwarz says she hopes to keep hiring.
  "We're going to keep on writing proposals, going after contracts, hopefully winning them, and when we do we're going to continue to hire people," says Schwarz.
  All of this contradicts the arguments about job creators being made by Republicans in Congress.
  "Those I would say were exceptions to the rule," responds Thune. "I think most small-business owners who are out there right now would argue that raising their taxes has the opposite effect that we would want to have in a down economy."
  But those small-business owners apparently don't want to talk.

  Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that only 1% of small business owners make more than $1 million per year. Only 20% of Small Businesses do any "job creating" at all as only about 5 million of the 20 million small businesses in this country pay out wages.
  
  http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-T2011-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8-2011.pdf
  
  Yet, Articles of Faith cannot be shaken by grim reality.
• dwccrew

  

  Most of those R's objecting are millionaires. Most of Congress is filled with people who are millionaires.
• dwccrew

  

  Maybe it is just the Senate, but I thought I read that somewhere.
• gut

  You have to remember the DEM definition of "millionaire" is anyone making over $250k.
  
  Also, they are all supposedly so giddy to pay more, yet they spend millions on tax accountants minimizing their tax liability. Warren Buffet's son on 60 Minutes last night has collected $300k in farm subsidies over the last 13 years. If that doesn't make you puke hearing Buffet talk about raising taxes, then I can't help you.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I'm a for raising taxes on millionaires making over $200,000 if it will eliminate the annual deficits and reduce unemployment to 5%. I can't believe there are so many people that don't see this solution.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;1012798 wrote:I'm a for raising taxes on millionaires making over $200,000 if it will eliminate the annual deficits and reduce unemployment to 5%. I can't believe there are so many people that don't see this solution.

  Raising taxes on the rich won't cover 1/4 of the deficit. Repubs are digging in because the Dems refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts. The proposal they've been pushing hard for is to cut marginal rates and eliminate deductions, which could have the same impact on revenues. Obama goes on 60 Minutes last night and says "derp, but that will hurt the middle class". No, it doesn't have to, "phase outs" are a popular and time-tested aspect of a progressive tax.
  
  If you aren't wise to this game by now, it's hopeless. They raise taxes or collect more revenue and all they do is spend more. If you're serious about balancing the budget, then WHERE are the REAL cuts that necessarily must be on the order of 3 or 4 to 1 for tax increases?
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1012818 wrote:Raising taxes on the rich won't cover 1/4 of the deficit. Repubs are digging in because the Dems refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts. The proposal they've been pushing hard for is to cut marginal rates and eliminate deductions, which could have the same impact on revenues. Obama goes on 60 Minutes last night and says "derp, but that will hurt the middle class". No, it doesn't have to, "phase outs" are a popular and time-tested aspect of a progressive tax.
  
  If you aren't wise to this game by now, it's hopeless. They raise taxes or collect more revenue and all they do is spend more. If you're serious about balancing the budget, then WHERE are the REAL cuts that necessarily must be on the order of 3 or 4 to 1 for tax increases?

  Protip: BG was making a joke.
• dwccrew

  

  ccrunner609;1012808 wrote:We had better cut the deficit by any means at this point cause when Obamakare kicks in we are done for.

  I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this. Not that I disagree with you, just want to know why you think it is Obamakare that will be the nail inthe coffin.
• I Wear Pants

  ccrunner609;1012966 wrote:Have you ever seen a government program that wasnt 500X's bigger then what they said it was going to be? When full blown government paid health care kicks in....it will cost everyone way more then what the average person pays in taxes a year.
  
  Taxes will double.

  Full blown government paid health care um, isn't happening. They didn't nationalize the health care industry.
• I Wear Pants

  Do you have links for all these taxes or are you just making shit up that you've heard elsewhere?
• sleeper

  

  These millionaires can pay whatever tax they want. Likely these are people who have no idea how to fix the problem, but somehow think taxes being too low is the main problem. It's not. Out of control spending is.
• dwccrew

  

  ccrunner609;1013058 wrote:Oh so you think that the private sector health care companies are going to survive with all the government regulations on them and the fact that people arent really going to want to pay 2 ways (their insurance + taxes for everyone elses insurance)?
  
  The only way it survives is if you get to opt out the taxes that will be levied to every person in this country to pay for all the insurance if you have private insurance.

  Pretty sure we pay those taxes for someone else's health care now. My paystubs all say medicare/medicaid under deductions. Hell, I am paying for your health care.
• dwccrew

  

  sleeper;1013075 wrote:These millionaires can pay whatever tax they want. Likely these are people who have no idea how to fix the problem, but somehow think taxes being too low is the main problem. It's not. Out of control spending is.

  Somehow they don't understand this though.
• I Wear Pants

  Most people I know that support taxes being higher for millionaires don't think that's the main problem. Spending is obviously that problem.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1013094 wrote:Most people I know that support taxes being higher for millionaires don't think that's the main problem. Spending is obviously that problem.

  What a load of crap. We need all those hoarding over $200,00 per year to give more to the federal givernment cuz it isn't fair. The folks making over $200,000 per year don't create a thing cuz they're all born with silver spoons and they don't earn a nickel. It's not fair that they are destroying the middle class, including all public employees. Bushie saved their tushie and now the bills have come due.
  
  And if the evil bastards making over $200,000 don't contribute moe revenue, our country will need to be run by smart people with degrees from Harvard and Columbia. Only the truly smart know where and how much money is needed for each American.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1013127 wrote:What a load of crap. We need all those hoarding over $200,00 per year to give more to the federal givernment cuz it isn't fair. The folks making over $200,000 per year don't create a thing cuz they're all born with silver spoons and they don't earn a nickel. It's not fair that they are destroying the middle class, including all public employees. Bushie saved their tushie and now the bills have come due.
  
  And if the evil bastards making over $200,000 don't contribute moe revenue, our country will need to be run by smart people with degrees from Harvard and Columbia. Only the truly smart know where and how much money is needed for each American.

  I've never said $200,000 should be the cut off.
  
  Again, please tell me what the obsession is with making an education a bad thing? "You went to Harvard? GET THE FUCK OUT LOSER" - Conservatives
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1012844 wrote:Protip: BG was making a joke.

  Yeah. Well, oops
• gut

  sleeper;1013075 wrote:These millionaires can pay whatever tax they want. Likely these are people who have no idea how to fix the problem, but somehow think taxes being too low is the main problem. It's not. Out of control spending is.

  The ones who aren't hypocrites (like Buffett) I'm convinced are just shamed into SAYING they want to pay higher taxes. Reality is these millionaires will spend as much money as ever on tax accountants to find loopholes and deductions, nor will they voluntarily "pay more" in a kind of charitable donation to the govt.
  
  I would love to see the 2011 tax returns for all these millionaires who want to pay higher taxes because I'll bet 99% of them (pun intended) are full of shit.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1013166 wrote:The ones who aren't hypocrites (like Buffett) I'm convinced are just shamed into SAYING they want to pay higher taxes. Reality is these millionaires will spend as much money as ever on tax accountants to find loopholes and deductions, nor will they voluntarily "pay more" in a kind of charitable donation to the govt.
  
  I would love to see the 2011 tax returns for all these millionaires who want to pay higher taxes because I'll bet 99% of them (pun intended) are full of shit.

  What? They want the laws changed so there aren't loopholes.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1013181 wrote:What? They want the laws changed so there aren't loopholes.

  I'm saying if said millionaires supposedly on the bandwagon here were sincere they wouldn't be taking advantage of those loopholes now. So either they are hypocrites, or if those particular individuals don't use those loopholes then they are really saying to raise taxes on the OTHER millionaires (and not themselves). WARREN BUFFETT'S SON HAS COLLECTED $300K IN FARM SUBSIDIES!!!!
  
  I don't think I've ever met a successful businessman who would willingly and cheerfully throw money at a sink hole (i.e the govt). The ones who would be sincere would say prove to me first you won't just be flushing more of my money down the toilet.
• believer

  

  gut;1012818 wrote:Raising taxes on the rich won't cover 1/4 of the deficit. Repubs are digging in because the Dems refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts. The proposal they've been pushing hard for is to cut marginal rates and eliminate deductions, which could have the same impact on revenues. Obama goes on 60 Minutes last night and says "derp, but that will hurt the middle class". No, it doesn't have to, "phase outs" are a popular and time-tested aspect of a progressive tax.
  
  If you aren't wise to this game by now, it's hopeless. They raise taxes or collect more revenue and all they do is spend more. If you're serious about balancing the budget, then WHERE are the REAL cuts that necessarily must be on the order of 3 or 4 to 1 for tax increases?

  THIS....end of thread.
• queencitybuckeye

  Anyone who believes we have a revenue problem as opposed to a spending problem (aka "dipshits") are free to send any amount of their wealth to the federal treasury voluntarily. Odd that almost none of them do.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1013147 wrote:I've never said $200,000 should be the cut off.
  
  Again, please tell me what the obsession is with making an education a bad thing? "You went to Harvard? GET THE **** OUT LOSER" - Conservatives

  Actually, it's more like "Oh, you went to Harvard? Golly, I had no idea. Oh, wait, I might have had some idea from the last 20 fucking times you told me you went to Harvard."
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1013147 wrote:I've never said $200,000 should be the cut off.

  No offense, but your cut off amount doesn't mean squat. BUT...our fearless leader and calmer-of-the-seas, President Barack Hussein Obama, has decreed that couples making over $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000 should be held to a higher tax standard and shall be renamed, "millionaires", because that is how a Harvard grad computes mathematical formulas. He is soooo much smarter than you or anyone else, so how in the hell can you object? Are you becoming one of those astroturf Tea-baggin radicals now?
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1013147 wrote:I've never said $200,000 should be the cut off.
  
  Again, please tell me what the obsession is with making an education a bad thing? "You went to Harvard? GET THE **** OUT LOSER" - Conservatives

  You didn't say that, but Obama and the liberals pushing these "millionaire" taxes have said that. That is their definition of a millionaire, someone making over 200-250k/yr.