Utah small-business owners want tax cuts extended

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • MenaceToSociety Draper, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    The tax rate for the 2% that make more than 250K would go up 3%, from 36% to 39%. If this guy's tax bill would go up 50K, that means his income is about 1,666,666.67. If he is telling the truth, and my math is correct, cry me a freaking river. If I made 1.6 mil, I'd have no problem paying an extra 50K to help balance the budget.

    We need to start living within our means as a country. George W. Bush more than doubled the total deficit of our 234 year old country in 8 years, in part thanks to the tax cuts that we can't afford. And his decisions are STILL driving a large portion of the deficit two years later!

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 1:23 p.m.

    Did Mr. Nichols support the invasion of Iraq and Afganishtan? If not, then he is probably "weak on defense," and we don't want anyone in our country weak on defense---- if yes, then he needs to help pay for it, or have a child or relative enlist and go over there and fight. Who pays for the $700 billion a year in defense spending?

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 12:52 p.m.

    I'm a business owner. The tax cut will make very little difference to me, certainly not enough to hire anyone contrary to what everyone who has proclaimed this as a miracle cure for the recession has been trumpeting. Very few small business owners make over $250,000 as their personal income, which is what you pay yourself after you write off all your business expenses. If it looks like you're going to take a tax hit after a windfall year, plow some of that money into stocking up on supplies or new equipment, or replace or buy things that eventually will need doing ahead of schedule. The guy profiled in the article at the very least needs a new tax weasel.

  • Nonconlib Orem, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 10:21 a.m.

    Unfortunately, as may be expected, this is a very superficial article. The effect of the woefully incomplete information presented is that the article comes off as either a simple scare tactic or a bunch of really bad math. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

    On the surface, it appears that Mr. Nichols's income that he is mostly plowing back into his business must be about $1.5 million, because the increase in the tax rate would be only 3 percent on taxable income under $379,650, and 4.6 percent on income over that threshold. But other factors may come into play. If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, those making lots of money will see their itemized deductions and personal exemptions phased out. They will also see capital gains taxes increase. My guess is that these three items account for the lion's share of the $50,000 increase Mr. Valentine was talking about. Of course the article does not offer any detailed explanation.

    Still, if Mr. Nichols is being taxed on such large amounts of reinvested "profit," he should either hire a new accountant or look at a different form of business.

  • Steve H. Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 9:53 a.m.

    Something doesn't sound quite right here. First, this is not a balanced article - Mr. Nichols, the person featured in the article, is closely connected to a Republican politician, who has a political agenda. Obvious source of bias. The other source supporting the headline is the Republican politician himself. Again, bias.

    Second, if Mr. Nichol's taxes are really going to go up by $50K, his taxable income must be around $1.5 million or more. (The tax increase only affects income beyond $250,000, and the rate increases by about 4%.) If he's really reporting $1.5 million in personal income even though he's putting that money "back into the business," he needs a new accountant. Either way, I'm more worried about people who can't find jobs or get health care than I am about whether Mr. Nichols pays more in taxes.

    And Rifleman, the last two times federal income taxes were increased, the federal deficit did go down. The money wasn't used for additional spending.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 9:11 a.m.

    From the story: "Just under 4,500 of the more than 181,000 small-business owners in Utah reported income of more than $250,000 in 2009, according to the Utah State Tax Commission. Those 4,500 taxpayers represent less than one-third of the Utahns earning more than $250,000."

    So the tax cuts wouldn't help almost ALL of the small businesses in Utah only about 2% of small businesses would benefit.

    The GOP/Teahaudist is Working for 2% of small business owners and telling everyone that MOST small businesses will suffer?
    With math skills like that no wonder the GOP got us where we are today.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 7, 2010 8:32 a.m.

    What people like Shaun in his comment above don't seem to understand is that government won't use income from higher tax rates to pay off the national debt. It just doesn't work that way.

    That's like suggesting giving more booze to an alcoholic will help him slow down his drinking.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Dec. 7, 2010 7:47 a.m.

    In actual fact when taxes are higher that is when more money is kept in the business as it costs more to take it out.

    Thanks to the GOP the tax payers just got saddled with additional debt. If that money were divided evenly between every man woman and child in Utah each person would receive a check for $100,000.

    Instead of that we just add it to the huge growing debt that nobody wants to seriously address.

    Our system is seriously flawed in that all we have running are politicians. I can name several people who are in the running who will not do anything serious about the debt.

    Here is a running list. McCain, Palin, Huckaby, Obama, Romney. Somebody serious would figure a way to save 10% or make cuts to that amount. Not one of the above mentioned names has the ambition to do that.

    Instead they all promote reasons they should be elected. I can't think of a good reason for any of them.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Dec. 7, 2010 5:54 a.m.

    Has the ability to incorporate the business, and paying business tax been taken away from small business? Then he could pay personal taxes on the income he pays himself.

    Something doesn't sound right. If people are earning $250,000 from a business, that's personal income, not business income.

    Allowing a person to put personal income in their business to make more money, should not come as a government subsidy.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2010 11:50 p.m.

    We can not afford to borrow money to pay for tax cuts. How about phasing in higher rates over four years so people do not get upset over balancing the budget and paying off the national debt.