?????

 

from "Factcheck.Org": "President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." Brooks Jackson's marvelous site noted that the timber interest was listed under "royalties" in his 2002 and 2003 returns, indicating The Texas Thunderbolt still has an interest in said concern.

 

Yet another example of a person completely unwilling to take any personal responsiblity on something even as small as 84 bucks. Pathetic.

It was originally a funny picture but apparently the hosting for it went down, oh well.

With such a small return I hardly think that this qulifies as "ownership" of a business. At least not more than a minute equity position that would result in 84 bucks.

that seems like the equivalent of me investing 84 dollars worth of shares in IBM....I guess technically I own PART of IBM...but I don't have a computer company by the name of IBM.

It's more like you getting $84 dollars in dividends from IBM because you hold shares.

Bush put it on his tax returns as business income. His motives for doing so are irrlevant. He counts as a small business despite 99.99 percent of his income coming from elsewhere. Factcheck estimates half of the 900k figure to be inflated small business such as this. Also:

 

But here's what the Tax Policy Center also found about those "small business owners" who would see their taxes go up:

 

Only 49% of them actually got most of their income from business (485,000 of them).

The large majority have no employees aside from themselves. Of the 487,000 who reported any business income on Schedule C, only 71,000 claimed deductions for wages -- fewer than 15% .

 

http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/article.aspx?docid=265

 

Kind of undercuts Bush's argument that such a tax increase would effect 900,000 job creators when it would only effect less than 10% of what he claims.

 

Still, it is clear that the Bush ad's 900,000 figure greatly exceeds the number of job-creating businesses that would be affected by Kerry's proposed tax increase. And the vast majority of small businesses would not be affected at all.

 

Who Would Not Be Affected

 

Bush's own Treasury Department estimates that a total of 33 million "small businesses" benefited from the Bush tax cuts on individuals, but most of them are in lower tax brackets. So -- even accepting the 900,000 figure used in the Bush ad -- that leaves more than 32 million "small businesses" not affected by an increase in the top rates on individuals.

 

It should also be noted that Kerry is proposing several tax cuts specifically targeted to small businesses, including a refundable tax credit aimed at reducing the cost of health-care benefits, eliminating capital-gains taxes for "long-term investments" held for five or more years in small businesses, and a "new jobs tax credit" for small businesses that add new jobs in 2005 and 2006. What Kerry is proposing for small business can be found on his website .

Thanks for making my point FF and tonyi.

But its OK to screw over 90,000 job creating businesses I guess...

588976[/snapback]

90k is .3% of the 32 million small business owners. Again, thanks for proving the point about Bush and where his interests lie.

tonyi is making our job easy today. In this thread at last.

But its OK to screw over 90,000 job creating businesses I guess...

588976[/snapback]

90k is .3% of the 32 million small business owners. Again, thanks for proving the point about Bush and where his interests lie.

588986[/snapback]

 

32M small busines owners eh?

 

Lets do the math.

 

~280M population (including infants, old people, kids, people in comas, etc) / 32M = 8.75

 

Are you trying to tell me that one out of ever 8.75 warm bodies with a pulse in this country is a "small business" owner?

 

Somehow...I find this to be, how shall I say...less than credible?

589305[/snapback]

 

 

I agree. Bush's Treasury department is less than credible. Im glad we can agree on that:

 

Bush's own Treasury Department estimates that a total of 33 million "small businesses" benefited from the Bush tax cuts on individuals,

I think the original issue is that Bush is full of crap with his statistics. Why didnt he just make the argument that Kerry would hurt 32k small businesses?

I never said it was ok to screw them over now did I? But Kerry's tax plan doesnt adversley affect the nation the way Bush claims now does it? So if it helps pay off the defecit, and its negative affect is only on .37% of small business owners, whats the big deal? Are you claiming that most economic/tax scheme changes dont screw over .37% of a given population?

I never said it was ok to screw them over now did I?

589411[/snapback]

 

"90k is .3% of the 32 million small business owners"

 

You're trivializing their plight. IMO, if the tax code screws over even a single person there is something wrong.

589671[/snapback]

 

Going to war screws over every single parent that loses a kid there. You wanna talk about screwing people over? How about screwing over parapalegics, who knows what science could do for them? Too bad we may never know. But its okay to screw them over. Its also okay to screw over girls who are raped against there will and get pregnant, who cares? Right? So again, you want to talk about screwing people over?

Going to war screws over...

 

 

Facinating rant, but it relates to wood or taxes how?

589681[/snapback]

 

It doesn't but you brought up screwing people over and I stuck with the theme.

I never said it was ok to screw them over now did I?

589411[/snapback]

 

"90k is .3% of the 32 million small business owners"

 

You're trivializing their plight. IMO, if the tax code screws over even a single person there is something wrong.

589671[/snapback]

 

Why? I imagine this will be driven into a debate over progressive tax schemes and driven away from the thread of GWB's claim. Why dont you just start another thread for that libertarian argument so others can at least chime in when they see it and not think the same debate is happening.

Unbelievable. Admit a mistake when you are wrong.