iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Small Business Owners Demand Repeal Of Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich

Small Business

First Posted: 05/04/11 02:09 PM ET Updated: 07/04/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Michael Teahan, like his father, mother, and uncles before him, is a small business owner. The 52-year-old has spent most of his adult life running his own businesses: a restaurant, a coffee bar and various companies involved in the espresso machine business.

"I was the only person in my family to go to college, because that’s not what we did -- we all opened up businesses," Teahan says. "For some people, that’s a big hurdle ... for us, it was like having lunch."

Teahan currently operates Espresso Resource, a company that imports espresso machine parts from Europe to sell to U.S. restaurants and coffee shops. And he’s doing very well for himself: The two-man operation clears about $1 million a year in total sales, Teahan says -- enough to secure himself annual income in excess of $250,000.

That makes Teahan one of the few small business owners to actually benefit from the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy. He says the cuts save him about $12,000 a year, compared to what he paid before they were enacted. But as debates over the federal budget deficit have intensified, Teahan has found the political discussion increasingly divorced from the reality of his experience as a small business owner.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, according to Teahan, will do nothing to bolster his firm. They won’t affect his hiring decisions, they won’t encourage him to buy new equipment or help him move into a bigger warehouse. He says all of those decisions -- the nuts and bolts of actually running a small company -- depend on the his customers' economic conditions, not his personal tax rate.

"What we do in business, how we spend our money, how we allocate our resources -- that has very little to do with tax policy," Teahan says. "I map my business based on my customers, and what my customers want to buy, and what they can afford to buy."

It’s a common complaint from small business owners. While congressional Republicans and entrenched corporate lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which is holding a Wednesday meeting on small business priorities -- and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have been pushing hard to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy by touting the interests of small firms, much of the small business community is demanding that those very tax cuts be repealed. The tax breaks for the wealthy will add $700 billion to the debt over the next 10 years, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. And many small firms say that money would be better spent on direct aid to the middle class.

"We are fed by our consumers, not by our tax breaks," says Rick Poore, owner of Designwear, Inc., a screen-printing business based in Lincoln, Neb. "If you drive more people to my business, I will hire more people. It's as simple as that. If you give me a tax break, I'll just take the wife to the Bahamas."

Poore emphasizes, however, that -- like the vast majority of small business owners -- he isn't among the elite class of taxpayers making $250,000 a year or more. He and his wife take in a combined $80,000 a year from their business. Teahan is an outlier, because most small businesses don’t make nearly enough to benefit from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

"Most small business owners make less than $250,000 and so the tax cuts don’t benefit most of us, and they’re really taking important valuable resources away from the federal budget," says ReShonda Young, corporate vice president and operations manager for Alpha Express, a Waterloo, Iowa-based company that specializes in transportation services and snow removal.

Young also serves on the executive board of Main Street Alliance, a coalition of small firms. Main Street Alliance notes that 98 percent of small businesses will not be affected by the Bush tax cuts in any way.

"The reality is that most businesses don’t pay the top marginal tax rate,” notes John Irons, an economist with the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "Most small businesses won’t be affected at all by a reversal of Bush tax cuts for the rich.”

For his part, Poore, the screen-printer, sees some dark humor in the entire notion of wealthy small business owners. He says that any accountant "that allows $250,000 in profit to get through to my bottom line would be fired."

Teahan emphasizes that even the few firms that do qualify for the Bush tax cuts don't boost their hiring in response to the Bush tax cuts. For decades, small companies have been able to secure tax breaks on the expenses that actually affect their bottom line -- labor, rent, equipment and other necessary costs. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by contrast, only affect how much of a firm's total profit owners keep for themselves.

"The economic premise, that people won’t hire because they might have to pay more taxes if they make more money, is beyond laughable,” says Lew Prince, owner of the Vintage Vinyl record store in St. Louis, Mo. "You hire when you think there’s a way you can make more money with that hire. The percentage the government takes out of it has almost nothing to do with it.”

So what really affects small businesses? High health care costs, which will likely be ameliorated by President Barack Obama’s health care reform, and limited access to credit in the wake of the financial crisis. Just as important to Teahan, Poore, Prince and other small business owners are federal economic policies that directly benefit their middle class customers. If extending tax breaks to millionaires means denying aid to the middle class, their firms will suffer.

"My customers work for a living,” Teahan says. "They’re working on espresso machines and selling coffee. They’re not these uber-rich Wall Street bankers. [My customers] need the money. If they’ve got money, then I'm doing great."

The upper-end Bush tax cuts are not corporate taxes -- they’re taxes on wealthy individuals. Many small firms are not corporations, and owners report their profits as the individual income of their owners. Some firms, like Teahan’s, choose to incorporate, though they never officially report a profit because all excess earnings are paid out to the owners.

The U.S. Chamber and the NFIB say that, because these business profits are reported as individual income, allowing tax hikes for wealthy individuals will hurt small business. The U.S. Chamber declined to comment for this story but NFIB spokesman Kevan Chapman says his organization has repeatedly polled its members and found that they favor the Bush tax cuts.

"We have over 300,000 members who would disagree with the notion that we don’t represent small business. The last time we balloted this measure was in November, and 89 percent said the federal government should extend those tax breaks," Chapman said.

There were 26.9 million small businesses in the United States in 2008, according to the Small Business Administration, though that figure includes millions of people who work on contract for employers but have no business, in the traditional sense, of their own. There were 6 million small firms with at least one employee.

Another small business groups beg to differ with the NFIB. The American Sustainable Business Council, which represents 70,000 small firms, maintains that "there is a strong business case for letting the tax relief for the wealthiest expire,” noting that doing so would "reduce the federal budget deficit and lessen the crisis with state and local budgets around the country.”

Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce has written on the Bush tax cuts issue for The Huffington Post. He emphasizes that many of the people who report business income on their personal income tax returns are bond traders, partners in corporate law firms, lobbyists and hedge fund managers -- not the kind of activity that most people think of as "small business.”

These alternative small business groups say that the debate over the Bush tax cuts has been heavily skewed by talking points from the NFIB and the Chamber. The Chamber has a long track-record of backing the economic priorities of corporate elites, while the NFIB has increasingly become a partisan wing of the Republican Party, as HuffPost detailed in January.

While the NFIB continues to support the indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it opted last year not to fight for a bill that would expand lending to small firms.

"Any small businessman who is in the NFIB is paying his enemies to stab him in the back,” says Prince, the record store owner.

Alpha Express VP Young agrees. "It's the corporate interests and the wealthy stealing our name to further their agenda," she argues.

While the upper-end Bush tax cuts would increase the federal debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years, the broader class of Bush tax cuts, which affect many middle-class taxpayers, would cost $3.1 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"We should have learned from the last decade that slashing taxes for the richest Americans is a great way to grow the national debt –- not jobs," says Holly Sklar, the executive director of Business for Shared Prosperity, a non-partisan small-business group funded predominantly by the Ford Foundation. "Few small businesses benefit from the top rate tax cuts, but many lose from a shrinking middle class and deepening budget cuts in everything from the Small Business Administration and education to vital infrastructure repair and modernization. The tax cuts are like termites, eating away at our economy and our nation’s future.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Michael Teahan, like his father, mother, and uncles before him, is a small business owner. The 52-year-old has spent most of his adult life running his own businesses: a restaurant, a co...
WASHINGTON -- Michael Teahan, like his father, mother, and uncles before him, is a small business owner. The 52-year-old has spent most of his adult life running his own businesses: a restaurant, a co...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,275
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
02:23 AM on 05/12/2011
Buffet said the same thing before, during and after the Bush tax cut for the wealthy.

What this really shows is that the "trickle down" damage of the extremist, unAmerian GOP's policies has now reached the point where even small business owners favor policies that lift the many versus the few. People like Buffet know well ahead of time that policies targeted on growing the middle class and lifting the poor out of poverty help his industries. But now, even small business owners who depend upon revenues from much smaller numbers of customers than Berkshire Hathaway have come to realize the same thing that Buffet predicted over a decade ago.

Bush's tax cut for the wealthy simply shifted the burden further to the middle class and the poor, the very people that large companies depend upon for revenue and that the US economy relies upon for driving growth.

The Hooverites and the Bush Neo-Hooverites never, ever understood anything about economics, the US economy or America for that matter.

Their record shows this and all that they really know how to do is try to claim credit for what they don't do (get Bin Laden) and deflect the blame for what they do - crash the economy, the banking system, let New Orleans drown as Bush parties, ignore warnings about Al Qaeda and allow 9/11 to happen, throw away the Clinton budget surpluses and give us the Bush deficits, two wars and more.

Don't you forget or let them either
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:34 AM on 05/11/2011
I support the Bush tax cuts. The fact is the wealthiest americans acount for up to 70% of our GDP which is from small businesses. They create jobs and through expansion.
Mark Jalali
Fort Myers
02:02 AM on 05/12/2011
Another right wing radical extremist lie - 70% of GDP is, in fact, based upon consumer spending and that 70% goes very heavily to non US businesses.

But as always the typical radical extremist xenophobic GOP approach, once again, is to simply make up something and state it as fact when it isn't.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muhtadi
12:45 AM on 05/09/2011
"My customers work for a living,” Teahan says. "They’re working on espresso machines and selling coffee. They’re not these uber-rich Wall Street bankers. [My customers] need the money. If they’ve got money, then I'm doing great."


The same holds true for his customers’ CUSTOMERS. Get rid of the “uber-rich” bankers and folk who can afford $6 every morning for a cup of hot-water and lets see how many espresso machines they buy from you.

I mean really… are we all here so foolish to believe if ONLY Bush didn’t raise income taxes more people would be drinking espresso and buying loads of funny t-shirts for each day of the week??

I am sure typewriter factories are hurting right now also... should we penalize (tax) the successful businesses in order to subsidize the poor performing typewriter factory?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muhtadi
12:32 AM on 05/09/2011
Great story. Where can I order my “I helped the government confiscate more wealth from its citizens and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Heffernan
clear-thinking compassion fan
10:04 PM on 05/09/2011
I'll sell you one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wendynyc
Climate Change is Real!
11:32 AM on 05/08/2011
Vote the G O p out - take our country back!
09:59 AM on 05/08/2011
I think polls and surveys shouldn't start at $250,000. Many small business people think they could easily make that someday and therefore side with the rich.

We need to tax the real rich, those starting at making more than a million a year.

Further, I think that the polls are intentionally designed this way, to "capture" the sentiments of small business people. The rich are stretching to use lower-income people to shield themselves.

It's interesting that all of them start at $250,000.
02:15 AM on 05/12/2011
The flaw in articles like these is that businesses have a different tax rate than individuals. Thus raising the top tax bracket for wealthy Americans has absolutely nothing to do with the corporate tax rate.

The extremist, radical, racist, xenophobic GOP consistently perpetuates the lie that raising the top individual rate on the salaries of CEOs making tens of millions a year is the same as raising the corporate rate when, in fact, these tax rates have and will continue to be completely different tax schedules and are handled in complete different sections of the tax code as anyone that actually owns a business already knows.

Likewise, the guy that got the $12,000 cut to the income he paid himself from his business under Bush's lowering the top rates isn't mentioning the fact that he can just as easily leave the money in his business rather than paying it to himself, increasing his company's book value, to invest in expansion, a new business, or simply park in an income earning investment and, in fact, pay dividends to himself and others at a rate of 17% if he wishes.

Yes, that's right, if you raise the top individual rate, that creates an incentive not to pay the money to yourself but rather to leave it in your business.

That, btw, is also part of understanding and cracking the code as to why President Obama has proposed increasing the top individual rate and decreasing the top corporate bracket from 35% to 26%.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:40 PM on 05/07/2011
If facts matter, the fact of the matter is that....

"Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). [...]

"Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html?KEYWORDS=hauser
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
genjac3213
I'm just saying...
09:50 PM on 05/07/2011
Until Washington understands that growing small businesses is where our job growth is going to come from, then we will be stagnant. It will not come from Big Business --- they sitting on their mountain of money. So job growth must come from many firms add 10 to 20 people at a time, a million times. Raise the top tax rate to 40%, invest in education, infrastructure, and small business investment, and I think unemployment rate will go down. Then again, that would also mean Washington was actually interested in putting Americans back to work.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
10:43 PM on 05/07/2011
i agree and some over regulation kills innovation...the days of small business going from 0 to large in a quick period of time is history....henry ford probably couldnt build the ford motor company today.....everything takes enormous amounts of money....you have to follow govt regulation and testing standards. if you just make a simple product and have to get it ul listed...it costs a fortune and then ul will be back in your pocket next year for some more testing upgrades....the govt says other testing labs are equal to ul...but most folks dont know or recognize them...there isnt any real competition there.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:02 AM on 05/07/2011
Rove's puppet did what he was told, and we are still paying the price.
photo
irochfpst
no right turn
01:29 AM on 05/07/2011
until small business owners realize that republicans don't give a damn about them, nothing good will happen. they need to wake up and realize that factually their lives where better when democrats were in power. why has it taken them this long to speak up? where were they when the vote for the bush tax cuts were taken? sounds like a case of buyers remorse and deservedly so. where do they think their customers will come from when republicans are financially attacking the very customers they say they serve?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:54 AM on 05/07/2011
Sorry, but the Bush tax cuts helped both small and large businesses. Your confusion is because the article misrepresented that most small business owners are buying into the Dem's class warfare or that trickle-down bailouts and trickle-up cash is working to stimulate sustainable jobs or produce more than weak economic growth.

Where were you when Obama talked about redistributing Joe Plumber's "wealth"? Did you really think he was talking about strengthening the AMERICAN middle class after his "global citizen" pronouncement during a campaign speech in Berlin?
03:36 PM on 05/07/2011
So are you saying that the article is misrepresenting the fact that most small business owners do make less than $250,000........or is it misrepresenting the fact that a business owner who is receiving an additional 20 30 or 40 thousand in income due to the tax cut has any incentive to hire when there is no change in demand for his good or services......or is it misrepresenting the fact that if you squeeze the middle class by shifting more risk to them and not creating safe products that allow them to take on this risk you also directly hurt the very small businesses that the tax cuts claim to protect......
photo
Luv2Purple
Entrepreneur - Lover of life, dreamer of dreams!
01:31 PM on 05/14/2011
OHmyLordinHeaven!!! NO, you are SO W-rong in your thinking. My wife and I own a successful small business. By that I mean we're solvent and create jobs, we pay taxes, own a home, give as generously as we can to local charities. I used to work in the financial sector& made silly money, but I'm happier now. But NOTHING the BushJunior tax policy did helped us or our business one penny, quite the contrary. Under any circumstances we, like the vast majority of small business owners make far less then the $250,000 figure mentioned as a target for increasing tax rates. The factual reality of all this mess is that under Reagan our nation's debt TRIPLED &began this debt/deficit spiral. The largest increases to national debt &largest deficits were under BushSenior &Lesser. American born President Obama did not talk about redistributing joeTHEplumber's "wealth". Joe had none. He had no business. He was a plant by the gop who are far better at dirty political tricks than governing. Joe ACTUALLY benefited under Obama's plan. The Rethugliclowns HAVE succeeded in transferring wealth to the extremely wealthy to the point that the slice of the American pie available for any normal citizen working diligently to secure their American dream is now meager. The gop believe that CRUMBS from the billionaire's golden platter will feed your family. The top 1% own more of America than the bottom 50%. Responsible debt reduction would start w/the military, Senate&Congress/staffSalariesPerks not educating children.
05:03 PM on 05/07/2011
You seem to assume that small business owners are different from the rest of us.... where and how would they speak up? Who did ask them about taxes?
People don't realize, but everybody who is self employed counts as a small business including hairdressers, Pilates and yoga instructors, accountants, consultants, cleaning people, dry cleaners etc. They are generally not big earners.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
11:45 PM on 05/06/2011
tax law guides every business decision for business owners....the bush 250k and now obama 500k equipment deduction where we can buy up to 500k in new machinery and deduct 100% of it the first year is the best shot american manufacturers have at staying competitive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muhtadi
06:49 PM on 05/06/2011
“Tax cuts for the wealthy, according to Teahan, will do nothing to bolster his firm. They won’t affect his hiring decisions, they won’t encourage him to buy new equipment or help him move into a bigger warehouse”

The paragraph above states “The two-man operation clears about $1 million a year in total sales, Teahan says”

The TWO man operation. TWO??…. Of course tax-policy isn’t going to drive his hiring decisions because they don’t need to hire anyone else!!
photo
Kache
Citizens, Unite!
12:50 AM on 05/07/2011
And he will not need to hire more people until he gets more customers - REGARDLESS OF HIS TAXES!
02:02 AM on 05/08/2011
yes, that's true but how many more customers would he get if he would use his tax cuts to lower his prices rather than take his wife to the Bahamas? He sounds like he's just playing with business. Like he said, "For some people, that’s a big hurdle ... for us, it was like having lunch."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmdziuban1
Aspiring ne'er do not-so-well
08:16 AM on 05/07/2011
He would if he had more customers and more sales. His point was that the tax cuts, besides not creating jobs, actually decrease his business' potential because it redistributes wealth upwards which shrinks his customer base- the middle class. The lesson: Not all government spending or activity is bad, and not all tax cuts are good.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:46 PM on 05/07/2011
Letting everyone keep more of the money they earn doesn't redistribute wealth upwards.

For example, when anyone buys one of the millions of personal computers, color TVs or microwaves that are commonly found in the vast majority of American households, they are voluntarily exchanging their own money in exchange for the cost of production, transportation and retailing of those products, as well as some profit for investors who have risked their own money on a gamble that the finished product will be able to sell at a profit and not a loss.

On the other hand, TAXES, not earned income, do redistribute wealth - and, in fact, are now being used to redistribute wealth above and beyond what the Constitution allows for within the constraints of limited and enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

For example, gas taxes run anywhere from .45 to .88 cents a gallon while the average profit to the producers is .02 -.05 cents a gallon. Let's say you fill up with 10 gals. Anywhere from $4.50 to almost $9 bucks goes to the government - to be redistributed both downward and upward. The lucky winners are special interests that can afford to lobby for government subsidies, and low and middle income groups that also qualify for the ever-increasing number of direct payments. Middle class taxpayers (including small businesses) are the biggest losers whenever Government redistributes wealth.
05:04 PM on 05/07/2011
exactly..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muhtadi
06:47 PM on 05/06/2011
"We are fed by our consumers, not by our tax breaks," says Rick Poore, owner of Designwear, Inc., a screen-printing business based in Lincoln, Neb. "If you drive more people to my business, I will hire more people. It's as simple as that. If you give me a tax break, I'll just take the wife to the Bahamas."

Designwear INC is a CORPORATION – NOT a small business. (corporations do not pay personal income tax so)

So let me get this straight - if Rick increases his profits (by raising prices or reducing costs) he is going to hire more people but if his company increases profits from the government reducing his costs of his product/services then he is going to the Bahamas?

What an absolute joke.
11:03 PM on 05/06/2011
Nope, he said if he has more business he will hire more people...that is what "if you drive more people to my business means" .. why would he hire if he doesn't need the extra person to work? And if he has more money because of a tax break he will take a nice vacation, makes perfect sense..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:01 PM on 05/07/2011
Soooo, Rick wants profitable businesses that have plenty of customers buying products that are in greater demand to donate more of their profits that *they* use to innovate and hire employees... spin it through an inefficient government bureaucracy.... and *maybe* drive more people to buy Rick's Designwear - instead of shopping at Walmart.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
03:16 PM on 05/06/2011
Is there a law that prevents them from cutting a check and mailing it to the IRS?
03:28 PM on 05/06/2011
I bet you consider that a deep thought! I got bad news for you and could explain it but would be a waste of time wouldn't it?
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
04:20 PM on 05/06/2011
It's probably not swimming as deep as that red herring you just thru out. I am taking your ridicule posing as a response as a "no" to my question.

Have a good evening.
11:05 PM on 05/06/2011
Why would they do it? It doesn't make sense..
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
11:17 AM on 05/07/2011
If you don't understand it, I cannot help.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danilo Gurovich
Software Technologist and Motorcycle Blogger
11:02 AM on 05/06/2011
Don't forget, the Koch Brothers group, and even Bechtel, the largest engineering firm in the world, are considered "small businesses" by the way they're structured. Republican Toadies bend their knees to "these" small businesses when they champion the "small business owner". The "real" small business owner couldn't get a job as a caddy at these "fake" small business owners' country clubs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muhtadi
07:08 PM on 05/06/2011
Designwear INC (referenced in this article) is a CORPORATION – NOT a small business that reports income on a 1040 form.

So the Democrate "Toadies" do their share of lying also. (How many times does the article reference “Bush’s tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY” ? Bush’s tax cuts were ACROSS the board, not limited to the “wealthy”)

Expresso Resources is a 2 man operation (according to this article) so they probably file on a 1040 instead of a 1120. Is 2 guys making a $1million a year through a partnership really “small business” or is it more of the “Koch style” business you lament?

If so, why are they commenting on the story of what tax-cuts do or do not for small business?

Regardless.. I would rather an entrepreneur like Mr. Teahan from Expresso Resources have an extra 12K than a fat politician looking to buy votes. Care to wager which one will invest the money more wisely?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmdziuban1
Aspiring ne'er do not-so-well
08:34 AM on 05/07/2011
They are using a definition of small business based on sales and profits, not strictly by number of employees or tax classification. The article clearly states that some such small businesses have incorporated.

As per your last paragraph, Mr. Teahan disagrees with you. And, it is not the politician buying votes, it is the mega corporations and uber wealthy buying politicians, that is the problem. The former is still illegal, the latter is not, as long as they can avoid direct proof of any quid pro quo arrangement, which unlimited and unreported campaign funding through front groups makes much simpler to do.
05:18 PM on 05/07/2011
As they said they would take an extra vacation to the Bahamas, this is not a good argument..
Btw you can incorporate even if you are a one person business with practically zero income, the main difference is the liability, if you work as a company your liability is limited to the company's assets.
Small business is defined as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing businesses and has nothing to with the legal form of the business.