The Competitiveness Index created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) identifies "16 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of capital -- both investment capital and human capital -- into and out of states." Its analysis shows that "generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working or investing, experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more."Hmm.
Bigger hmm. Then there's this:Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful.
The rewards for success were huge. Texas gained 1.7 million net new jobs, Florida gained 1.4 million and Arizona gained 600,000. While the U.S. average job growth percentage was 9.9%, Texas, Florida and Arizona had job growth of 18.5%, 21.4% and 28.9%, respectively.
Guess which two states have the lowest tax rates? Guess which have the highest? And finally:Not to mention, there's no such thing as a corporate tax. But that's for another post.Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.
In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.
AaAaAaAh.....
ReplyDeleteDo I have to read this??? (does as she recalls Erachet doing once and *runs* as far as she can in the opposite direction)
In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations.
ReplyDeleteThree out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses. In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America.
workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.
Wait, wages paid are deducted from the taxable income of the individual doing business as the small business, and it is only the taxable amount left over after all expenses are deducted that is taxed. That's basically the income the individual has made, and unless *that* amount is over the $250,000 mark, it won't be taxed at the proposed higher rate, right?
That's not true. The individual likely is taking whatever money he needs to support his lifestyle, then putting most of the money back into the business, which means that the business itself is suffering because of the taxes. The lower the rate, the more money gets put back into the business, the more that business can expand and hire others and produce better/cheaper products for consumers.
ReplyDeleteOkay, but not all small businesses are trying to expand. And for your scenario, the money put back in the next year will be expenses deducted from income.
ReplyDelete