Koch Brothers spending vs the Unions

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Such observations are not usually made in reference to an S-Corp, or a Partnership, or a Sole Proprietorship because most of the moronic teabaggers spewing these chunks out of their festering pieholes about "job creators" are repeating what they hear on FOX or the EIB don't have a fucking clue what an S-Corp, or a Partnership, or a Sole Proprietorship...or know a schedule C from shinola.

These are for you, Ike, and also for John.

http://www.nfib.com/article/new-stud...inesses-60548/

"Increasing individual rates directly impacts small businesses organized as S corporations, partnerships, LLCs and sole proprietors, also known as “pass-through” businesses. NFIB research shows around 75 percent of all small businesses are organized in such a manner. "

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib349...-rates-filers/

"Over the past few decades, both the proportion of firms organized as pass-through entities and their share of business receipts have increased, from 83 percent of firms and 14 percent of business receipts in 1980 to 94 percent of firms and 38 percent of business receipts in 2007 (CBO 2012b). These shifts have been driven by changes in the tax code—such as lowering the top marginal income tax rate below the top marginal corporate income tax rate—as well as movement in the economy from manufacturing toward providing goods and services.

Under the definitions employed in the current debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts, any taxpayer who declares any income derived from these pass-through income flows is considered a “small business.” There are obvious problems in equating a pass-through entity with a small business in this context."

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Because they're in the 45%, right?

How's about you keep your words out of my mouth. It's bad manners.

Because today's breed of American conservatism is twisted, sick and wrong. I have no idea what percentage they are of anything.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Fine and dandy. The median size of a client in my book of business is about 30 employees. About 60% of those are S-Corps (and some subset of the other 40% file as S-corps, but whatever).

So, parse out the Sub-S corps in your book. What's the sample size, high, low, average and mien for them?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't see their tax returns Dave. Sorry, I can't feed your grist mill today.

I think you're evading the question. I suspect you know more or less what each makes so it would be easy to draw inferences from that information as to the number or percentage of them in the top bracket.

John

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

These are for you, Ike, and also for John.

http://www.nfib.com/article/new-stud...inesses-60548/

"Increasing individual rates directly impacts small businesses organized as S corporations, partnerships, LLCs and sole proprietors, also known as “pass-through” businesses. NFIB research shows around 75 percent of all small businesses are organized in such a manner. "

Nice resource whell. NFIB, right-wing partisan hacks of the first order. Karl Rovener, the Koch's, and the Bradleys. Some real balanced and independent information there. Well bolded by the way...who fucking cares what the NFIB says or which part of what they say, you think is worth bolding. "NFIB research?" Really? Is that some kinda sick joke?

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a lobbying group that calls itself "the voice of small business." However, the group has been shown to lobby on issues that favor large corporate interests and run counter to the interests of small businesses. News reports have also found that NFIB, which claims to be non-partisan, engages in partisan politics, and receives millions in hidden contributions.

Small business owners run the gamut politically. For instance, 33 percent identify as Republicans, 32 percent as Democrats, and 29 percent as Independent. However, NFIB accepted a $3.7 million gift in 2010 from Crossroads GPS, a group affiliated with Republican political operative Karl Rove that overwhelmingly endorses and financially supports Republican candidates. According to new data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), in 2010 the NFIB Small Business Legal Center (SBLC) received $1.15 million from "conservative 501(c)(3) conduit group" Donors Trust, a major contributor to the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Other contributions include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which gave to a wide range of conservative groups including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Here whell...read the whole thing at http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...ndent_Business

The NFIB's a real non-partisan outfit...yeh sure.

I'm sure you don't like Sourcewatch, any more than I like the NFIB, eh whell? So one pretty much cancels out the other. How's about you argue your position on the idiocy of increased federal income taxes impeding "job creators, in your own words...ya think? Maybe we can start with the idiocy of the right wing concept of "job creators" in the first place. Speak up...I can't wait.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

These are for you, Ike, and also for John.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib349...-rates-filers/

"Over the past few decades, both the proportion of firms organized as pass-through entities and their share of business receipts have increased, from 83 percent of firms and 14 percent of business receipts in 1980 to 94 percent of firms and 38 percent of business receipts in 2007 (CBO 2012b). These shifts have been driven by changes in the tax code—such as lowering the top marginal income tax rate below the top marginal corporate income tax rate—as well as movement in the economy from manufacturing toward providing goods and services.

Under the definitions employed in the current debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts, any taxpayer who declares any income derived from these pass-through income flows is considered a “small business.” There are obvious problems in equating a pass-through entity with a small business in this context."

Next. I don't know what you're up to referencing a "liberal" think-tank, but thanks so much for your support of my argument.

For instance right there in the title...

‘Small business’ and top marginal rates.
Tax filers affected by proposed rate increases are not necessarily small, or businesses, or job creators.

And...

- The way that small businesses are defined for tax purposes has been put to use in this debate in a manner that is misleading. The default definition of “small business” in the tax debate can often identify many entities that are neither small nor even businesses.
- Even under this broad definition only a fraction of small businesses would be affected by tax rate increases at the top.
- Small businesses do not represent a significant share of job creation, though new businesses do.
- Small businesses already enjoy preferential treatment in the tax code through provisions that favor the way they are organized and operate.
- The best way to boost American small businesses is to address the demand shortfall that keeps unemployment high and to strengthen the social safety net in ways that can encourage entrepreneurial initiative.

So...much obliged.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, parse out the Sub-S corps in your book. What's the sample size, high, low, average and mien for them?

John

What's a mien?

48 total

Since my largest is over 400 - I have 5 of 40 that are over 100), let's just focus on the 43 that are under 100. The median is about 30 employees. Of the remaining 43, my smallest is 11 my largest of that group is 85. Average is probably around 40.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Next. I don't know what you're up to referencing a "liberal" think-tank, but thanks so much for your support of my argument.

For instance right there in the title...


And...


So...much obliged.

Excellent work on your cherry - picking of a sentence. And you're very welcome. But you really do need to read the entire article if you want to glean anything of value from it. If you were just about cherry - picking, then you' probably purposefully failed to note this:

"Gravelle (2010) cites a study of this nature by David Birch in 1981, which found that firms with fewer than 100 employees created 80 percent of jobs over 1969–1976."

You may have missed it, but I did actually cite from two sources - one more favorable to your point of view, the other less favorable. Did you only bother to look at one?

[Pio1980]

Just when did newspeak turn "employers" and "employment" into "job creators" and "job creation"? These terms are used by those who would nullify Progressive reforms and shift the business model back to 19th Century industrial feudalism. For example, "Right-to work" is just a mandate to take it up the ass from an employer without recourse for a meaningful effective defense, take-it-or-leave-it.