AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Cycloptichorn asked:
Why would I be envious, of a rich person?

Ican answers:
You would be envious of rich people, if you resent rich people because they have more than you do, and you want people who have more than you to have less, in order to relieve you of your resentment of people who have more.

Joefromchicago, some small businesses are not corporations. Also some corporations are small corporations, S-Corps. The net profits of S-Corps are treated as income to their owners, are not taxed separately, but are included as part of the owners' taxable income.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. I didn't mention corporate taxes nor did either of the two writers we are discussing. So are YOU lying by referring to corporate taxes here? If we use your way of describing such, you could be accused of lying about the taxes they are referring to. Or perhaps we might be willing to keep things within their proper context here and debate the actual message.

Oh brother!

Here's what you wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

A small business owner, such as myself, certainly regards them as such as estimated social security plus income on net earnings is combined and submitted on the same form every three months.

If you're a small business owner filing quarterly taxes, I assumed you'd be filing corporate taxes. But if you're filing individual taxes, you can still deduct your portion of FICA that you paid on behalf of your employees. And if you're filing estimated taxes as a self-employed individual on a Schedule C, you still get to deduct one-half of your FICA payments.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody pays my half. I pay it all. Nobody pays El Stud's half. He pays it all. Neither writer was discussing employees either. Are you lying when you try to make this an employee issue when they weren't? Or perhaps we might be willing to keep things within their proper context and debate the actual message.

Setanta was right: your accountant must be living in a constant state of despair.

Foxfyre wrote:

Since you brought up the separate issue regarding social security...

I brought it up? You must be kidding. You brought it up by quoting a bunch of authors who decided to add FICA to the income tax to come up with their ridiculous numbers.

Foxfyre wrote:

...when I had employees and was paying half of their social security out of the business checkbook, they were still paying all or most of it. If I had not had that mandatory expense and they were paying all their own social security, their paycheck would have been more. So in a way, most employees are paying at least some if not all the portion of social security the employer is responsible for.

And this has what to do with the original post, where the author was talking about tax rates?

Foxfyre wrote:

What intentional blurring? I think both writers are specifically addressing the marginal tax rates.

That's because you don't understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.

Foxfyre wrote:

In all due respect, you saying that does not make it so. I don't think you have made a credible rebuttal yet.

Of course not. But then you don't get to be the referee when you're playing the game. I'll leave it to others to decide who's right and who's wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:

Me either when you obviously can't back up your own argument.

That's it. Take your ball and go home. That's how losers usually end the game

"Good losers acknowledge when they have been beaten fair and square"

the irony fairy just died.

This only reinforces my opinion that it is YOU who does not understand what the marginal tax rate is. The problem is not with my sources.

First, your assumption that I would be filing corporate taxes would be a lie based on your definition of 'lie'. Your definition of lie seems to be anything that you can declare disagreement with. (My definition of lie is an intentional is an intentional deception by distorting, mistating, or misrepresenting some fact as truth when it in effect is not.)

You really don't have a clue about how taxes work re social security do you? You completely ignored the short piece by a tax attorney that I posted that did know something about taxes, including the marginal tax rate.

They are considering it an income tax which it is. You seemed to suggest that it shouldn't count since you inferred it would all be deducted from income. It isn't. And it won't be under Obama's plan either. And even if it was, a deduction is not the same thing as a tax credit, a fine distinction you seem to be having difficulty with. Are you SURE you're a lawyer?

You are the one who said the employee only pays have of the 15.65% social security assessed. I am illustrating that--by your definition--you said a lie. You would have said a truth had you said that only half is deducted from the employee's paycheck. You didn't say it that way. Therefore, by your definition, you lied.

I posted the definition of marginal tax rates as defined by a tax attorney. Argue with him if you think he doesn't understand marginal tax rates. I understood what he said perfectly. But then I knew what marginal tax rates are to begin with and you have given me no confidence that what you thought they are is what they actually are.

What others would you choose to make that determination? I think my sources posted so far are more credible than yours since you haven't posted any.

No, that's how poor losers usually end the game. Good losers acknowledge when they have been beaten fair and square. Since you have provided absolutely zero argument or sources or credible data to dispute my argument, we would have to therefore conclude that you are the loser. And so far not a good one.

But I am happy to congratulate you for playing the game as long as you lasted, and thank you for acknowledging me as the winner.

Joefromchicago, some small businesses are not corporations. Also some corporations are small corporations, S-Corps. The net profits of S-Corps are treated as income to their owners, are not taxed separately, but are included as part of the owners' taxable income.

Your marginal tax rate " including federal, state, and local income taxes and federal payroll and self-employment taxes " is the percentage that will come off the top of your next dollar of incremental taxable income.

You evidently live a very rich and fulfilling fantasy life.

joe wrote:

Quote:

You evidently live a very rich and fulfilling fantasy life.

I love that line~! It's apropos when used against Foxie. She argues from a base of ignorance, and still thinks she's won the debate. LOL

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month
While opposition to the President’s proposed health care reform is partly responsible for the declining approval ratings, the numbers reflect a broader level of frustration. Last fall, during the Bush Administration, voters overwhelmingly opposed the bailout plans for banks but the bailout went ahead. Earlier this year, voters overwhelmingly opposed the federal takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, but they went ahead as well. Two-thirds of American voters (64%) support a law requiring the federal government to sell its interest in GM within one year.

Realistically, no one can tell what will happen next. In the short-term, resolution of the health care legislation may have a significant impact on the President’s ratings. Looking further ahead, the economy and federal deficit numbers are likely to set the tone heading into the mid-term elections. Forty percent (40%) of voters see reducing the deficit as the top priority while 21% say health care is number one.

2009 Strongly....Strongly........Approval.....Total..........Total
.........Approve....Disapprove.......Index.....Approve....Disapprove
Jan.........43.............20..................23.............62..............34
Feb.........39.............25..................14.............59..............39
Mar.........37.............30..................07.............57..............42
Apr.........35.............31..................04.............55..............44
May.........35.............29..................06.............57..............42
Jun.........34.............32..................02.............54..............45
Jul.........30.............37..................-7.............50..............49
Aug.........30.............39..................-9.............49..............50
Sep.........xx.............xx..................xx.............xx..............xx
Oct.........xx.............xx..................xx.............xx..............xx
Nov.........xx.............xx..................xx.............xx..............xx
Dec.........xx.............xx..................xx.............xx..............xx

cicerone imposter wrote:

joe wrote:

Quote:

You evidently live a very rich and fulfilling fantasy life.

I love that line~! It's apropos when used against Foxie. She argues from a base of ignorance, and still thinks she's won the debate. LOL

Quoted for truth.

Being self-employed, when figuring our personal income tax, we can deduct one half of our self-employment tax, but that nowhere nearly reduces our tax liability by that amount.

A tax similar to the FICA tax is imposed on the earnings of self-employed individuals, such as independent contractors and members of a partnership. This tax is imposed not by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act but instead by the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 through 26 U.S.C. § 1403 (the "SE Tax Act"). Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [Soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business's net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact that employees' 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative "employer's half" of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don't get taxed on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn't get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don't pay general income tax on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn't pay FICA tax on it either.[7][8]

You are self-employed for this purpose if you are a sole proprietor, an independent contractor, a partner in a partnership, a member of a single-member LLC or are otherwise in business for yourself. You usually must pay self-employment tax if you had net earnings from self-employment of $400 or more. Generally, the amount subject to self-employment taxes is 92.35% of your net earnings from self-employment.

No, I think not. I win based on nothing more than I presented an argument, was able to provide credible sources to back me up, and you didn't.