RW Spin Q?: Would raising the SS Income Cap Hurt Small Businesses?

[Up2Late]

Is this just more RW/WH BS when they say that raising the Social Security Income Cap (currently $90,000.00) would hurt 1)Small Business Owners AND 2)Hurt Job creation?

:wtf:Aren't Small business Owners protected by plenty of other laws? Like Corporate Law or LLC or LLP?

[bullimiami]

1. how?

small businesses are paying salaries over 90,000 and cant afford to match SS above that?

its moronic.

[mindem]

2. It's just another lame right wingnut argument.

Their idea of small business and your average persons idea of small business are two different things. Their function in life is to protest anything that may get in the way increasing wealth for the wealthy.

Gads, I was flipping around on the TV last night and there was some fundamentalist screaming about how it was the number of abortions that have occured that has put S.S. in peril. They have gone so far over the edge that it is near insanity.

[Inland]

5. A rich, high income person may have a "small business"

Lawyers, doctors, investment counselors, and the like.

Bush tries to pretend like a tax cut for high income professionals has something to do with the taxes levied on the mom and pop candy store.

[Up2Late]

12. Aaaaaahhhhh Yessss, Now I get it,

What this is all about is protecting the 6% SS Tax that those Corp Presidents and CEO "paying themselves" $500,000-$1,000,000+ "Salaries," protecting the 6% between $90,000-$500,000 or whatever.:think:

Ebeneezer Scrooge has nothing on these guys.:grr:

[emulatorloo]

3. Let Tom Tomorrow explain it to you . . .

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18548

[Inland]

4. It would raise the tax on every small business owner who either

earns more than 90k or pays someone a salary of more than 90k

You know that of the total SS tax, employers pay half, deducting it as a business expense.

So any rise in the SS tax for an employee, half falls on the owner.

To the extent that and owner takes the profits of the business--that is, pays himself the profit as his reward--it is subject to the Self Employment Tax, which is BOTH halves of the SS tax, with one-half deductible as a business tax. Any rise in the SS falls on the owner to that extent.

[Up2Late]

10. I understand your point, but by what you're saying,...

...couldn't raising the $90,000 cap actually be argued to be a GAIN to the small business owner?

What I mean is, if you raise the cap, wouldn't that gives the "Small Business Owner" MORE SS Income Tax that can be "written off" the SBO Total Tax Bill?

Looks to me like the left COULD Spin this as a "New SS Tax Cut" for the "Small Business Owner."

Would that be true? Or would it (could it) make Good Counter-Spin?:shrug:

[Inland]

11. Not a gain, except for the gain of a (more) healthy SS system

He can take half the raise off the total income, which means that he will recoup 15% at most of the raise.

[Up2Late]

13. I see, but what do you think of the SPIN potential, or Counter-Spin?

I mean, I could say that I totally understand what you're saying, and I'm sure if I sat down with the numbers, it would eventually be clear, but most Americans won't do that.

Seeing how dependent on SPIN this whole SS "Snow Job" is, do you see any benefit to a Counter-Spin argument (among Senators and Congress People) like this?:shrug:

[papau]

6. Something like 99% of small business would not be affected -

unless you call small businesses those tax shelters the Cheney and Bush have purchased - and attribute the Cheney/Bush pain in the pocket to their being small business folks (Bush's little business is only a few 10's of thousands per year - his Pres salary is what he is trying to protect).

[Jacobin]

7. It would also burn all the apple pies in Amurka and

all Amurkin Moms would be pock marked.

[hedda_foil]

8. It's insane

Even if you buy their position that people who own S Corporations have all the profit flow through to their personal income tax, it's in another tax category from salary (the owner's and his/her employees'), not to mention dividends. Only salaries are subject to FICA. A business owner who was actually able to pay him/herself more than $90,000 in salary, is far more likely to put a hunk of the old paycheck into dividends, which the pukes have decided shouldn't be taxed at all. And of course, they all know that, as do the small business owners. It's the employees' of small businesses that might buy the argument because they'd have no idea how it works.

What they're really worried about is their bigtime corporate buddies having to pay more FICA taxes for their middle and upper management employees. They could care less about the upper-middle class 2 income families having to pay FICA on more of their income. It's what the corps have to pay that counts for them.

All their domestic policies are geared to cut costs and liability and increase profitability for global corporations companies.

[punpirate]

9. Most small businesses...

... have employees well below the current cap, so the additional amount they might pay is meaningless, unless the owners themselves might be affected by it.

But, the math suggested is to re-index the cap to wage inflation, bringing it up to ~ $125K. Assuming that figure, the business would pay an additional $2170 per year for each employee making $125K.

This, I think, is a smokescreen, because the firms most affected are largely going to be large corporations, who pay such salaries for middle- and upper-level managers, but even then, the number of those employees as compared to total employees is relatively small.

As it is now, the $90K cap is fully paid by about 85% of all wage earners, and the jump to $125K would affect another 5% or so of wage earners. How many of that additional 5% (excluding self-employed persons such as accountants, consultants, small-town lawyers) would be employed by small businesses?

Cheers.

[Up2Late]

14. Kick n/t

:kick: