Quote:
Originally Posted by notlongnow
This is where I think the problem begins for me. My accountant says that because of the lose of income for going over $250,000 per year because of the higher taxes I need to earn no more than I do now.
That means do not expand my business because it it only more work for less money.
So if you think it does not hurt job creation, I am telling you I will not be creating any more jobs because the government gets all the money for that extra work I did and I get nothing.
To some that kind of income seems like a lot but when you factor in all the cost of living in this time it ain't!
This sounds like tax them but not me but I think you need to earn much more than $250,000 for it not to hurt. The uber rich can absorb it much better than some one in my situation.
Just say'in
|
No offense but your accountant is wrong, unless he just wants you to shift the money into next year, which really doesn't cost you in the long run. You will not be taxed at 100% so any money you make above any marginal tax breakpoint, will mean more money in your pocket. If keeping more than 60% of every dollar you make above that point is not attractive to you, then you are in an enviable position indeed. Also if you make more than $250,000 in TAXIBLE INCOME and you are having a hard time making ends meet, you need a new accountant and a little lifestyle adjustment. I don't mean to be strident, but you and me and my kids are not hurting, the country and many people in it are. I just picked the $250k mark from discussions during the last campaign - maybe it should be higher, but it should be somewhere. I am still convinced that the far right has pushed the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will cost jobs so they can get buy-in from the vast majority of people who don't fall into that category. It is simply not a viable argument - why did we have almost full employment during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when the highest marginal tax rates were double what they are today?