Support NeoGAF

[RaymondCarver]

Small Mom and Pop operations, even in small communities, can have large amounts of income over the period of an entire year. Much of the time there are large operating costs, and it is hard enough to stay in business. Why, typically, do Democratic leaders wish to tax small businesses more?

I'm curious because I think that small operations such as mom and pop shops are taxed enough. I think they deserve a break. I want the ability for you, me, or the next guy to start up a business or service and be encouraged by the federal government once revenue starts to generate. Starting from having nothing to making the big decision to go into business is risky, and typically takes fifteen to twenty years to start seeing returns for a mom-and-pop or family business to make a profit. Why do Democratic leaders typically want to eat more into the incomes of entrepreneurs?

 

[Incognito]

BUSH HAS BRAINWASHED U!!!

 

[RaymondCarver]

I don't think so. Show me proof.



I've lived it.

Look at my parents taxes over the last twenty years and see during which administrations the tax rates have been higher.

...

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I don't think so. Show me proof.



I've lived it.

Look at my parents taxes over the last twenty years and see during which administrations the tax rates have been higher.

...

There has only been one democratic administration in the past 20 years. That would be Clinton.

 

[shoplifter]

Don't forget that people like Lynne Cheney can file as a small business because of their speaking engagements.

 

[Diablos]

Lynne Cheney kind of looks like a prostitute. Kind of.

 

[NohWun]

Republicans these days believe that future generations should pay for services for the current generation. Democrats want the current generation to pay for the current generation.

You see, Republicans can take advantage of future generations because they can't vote, and the current generation mostly only cares about itself anyhow.

 

[Phoenix]

There has only been one democratic administration in the past 20 years. That would be Clinton.

Carter and Clinton if memory serves. But ownage nonetheless

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Carter and Clinton if memory serves.

20 years ago runs to 1984 if you ask me. Reagan was on his way to his second term this time 20 years ago. My onwage is complete.

 

[Phoenix]

20 years ago runs to 1984 if you ask me. Reagan was on his way to his second term this time 20 years ago. My onwage is complete.

Double-ownage

(self-owned)

 

[NohWun]

Perhaps another way of looking at this is "Why do BIG businesses get all the tax breaks?"

The answer, of course, is obvious: they're funding the lobbyists, and money talks, especially when Republicans are listening (Democrats listen too, though).

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I was reading that only about 900,000 small businesses out of the 20,000,000+ in our nation would actually be affected by the tax raise for the 200,000+ bracket. This is nothing more than Republican spin. Kerry isn't going after small business. They are going after the rich that Bush has pandered to over the last 4 years. Next thing you know Bush will be running ads that say Kerry and Edwards kick puppies.

 

[Phoenix]

I was reading that only about 900,000 small businesses out of the 20,000,000+ million in our nation would actually be affected by this. This is nothing more than Republican spin. Kerry isn't going after small business. They are going after the rich that Bush has pandered to over the last 4 years.

And it all depends on 'which' small businesses you're talking about - those that are small in manpower or small in revenue. Small revenue businesses hardly ever get anything but helped by tax cuts. Small size large revenue businesses get burned because they don't have a lot of writeoffs.

 

[Incognito]

it's not even 900,000. why the republicans keep trotting out that number only to be owned afterwards by the networks "FACT CHECK" segment is beyond me. the actual number is around 440,000k.

repetition is the republicans favorite campaign tool.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

it's not even 900,000. why the republicans keep trotting out that number only to be owned afterwards by the networks "FACT CHECK" segment is beyond me. the actual number is around 440,000k.

repetition is the republicans favorite campaign tool.

You've got a point there, but it's not like they're the only ones who do such things. Many times you'll hear about how 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost (often forgetting to specify "private sector" even), because it sounds much larger than if you factor in the increase in public jobs, which makes the net job loss about half that.