Wednesday, April 18, 2012
RIPPED from the headlines at Huffpo:
In the second major shot in Washington's ideological battle over taxes this week, the White House on Tuesday slammed a small-business tax-cut proposal in the House as a handout for the "fortunate" and threatened to veto it.
The Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012, sponsored by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), would slash taxes on the adjusted gross income of as many as 22 million small businesses -- those with fewer than 500 employees -- by as much as 20 percent for one year. It would add $46 billion to the deficit.
It's the second confrontation of the week because the Buffett rule was "defeated" in the minority-ruled Senate by a vote of 51-47 on Monday.
So it sounds good, right? Who could be against a tax cut for small, tiny, struggling businesses like Joe's barber shop? Even if it would add to the deficit, in an amount nearly identical to the revenue that would have been realized by enacting Buffett.
Except is it really a small business tax cut, designed to help out poor Joe? The White House says "not so much."
Congress' revenue estimators, the Joint Committee on Taxation, has calculated that the top 11 percent of small businesses would grab 64 percent of the break, while the 125,000 firms with $1 million a year in adjusted gross income would snag 18.3 percent. The 9.2 million small businesses at the bottom of the income heap would share about 15 percent of the break.
The bill "is not focused on cutting taxes for small businesses, but instead would provide tax cuts to the most fortunate," says the White House statement.
Yeah, that sounds about right for Repub legislation. More tax breaks for jillionaires, while the truly small (i.e., insignificant) people get the greasy end of the stick again.
Will Obama really veto this turkey? Nah...he'll weenie out.