Taxes have been going down since the 60's.
Calling the BHO increase from 35-40% "taxing the crap
out of small businesses" seems a bit over dramatic if you
consider that the rates were 80%-90% 1944-1963

Fox News?


http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 <2> 200,000
1945 94 <2> 200,000
1946 86.45 <3> 200,000
1947 86.45 <3> 200,000
1948 82.13 <4> 400,000
1949 82.13 <4> 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 <5> 400,000
1952 92 <6> 400,000
1953 92 <6> 400,000
1954 91 <7> 400,000
1955 91 <7> 400,000
1956 91 <7> 400,000
1957 91 <7> 400,000
1958 91 <7> 400,000
1959 91 <7> 400,000
1960 91 <7> 400,000
1961 91 <7> 400,000
1962 91 <7> 400,000
1963 91 <7> 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 60 200,000
1972 70 50 200,000
1973 70 50 200,000
1974 70 50 200,000
1975 70 50 200,000
1976 70 50 200,000
1977 70 50 203,200
1978 70 50 203,200
1979 70 50 215,400
1980 70 50 215,400
1981 69.125 50 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950

Does anyone here know the current number one reason people leave small business or will/can't start a small business?

Hint:

Not capital

Not taxes

Taxes are a detail in the pursuit of success. Only idiots would use the fear of taxes as a lame-brained excuse not to try to succeed. Moreover many people don’t shy away from work and the opportunities it brings. Many actually embrace work.

Those who have spent their life working for the government, or do nothing but warm a chair all day every day have a demonstrated lack of comprehension for the benefits that work can bring.

Personality conflict?

Right now that reason would be lack of capital.

Nope.

The number one reason according to Forbes is health insurance, the cost is so high that many people are taking the flight to safety with jobs that provide health insurance.

That reminds me of a sign I haven't seen in a long time: "Help Wanted".
You first got to define "job", then tak e look at the definition of "employment". A job usually does not guarantee employment.

A business generating $250K per anno does not allow a budget for a full time regular employee with standard benefits.
It may allow for an occasional part time job, when needed, today but maybe not tomorrow.

One sign I have recently encountered instead of the "Help Wanted" sign:

Not Hiring! No Travajo! Spray painted on a sheet of plywood placed at the entrance to a construction site. I'd say we'll see more of those in the upcoming future, even though Bernanke states the recession might be over by the end of the year ....

Tijuana

... just below San Diego ... land of broken dreams

... they say "Hey Gringo, take us 'cross the border, we'll work for just a quarter ... on the other side ..." - JJ Cale

The answer to that is universal health care like I've said numerous times.

Or how about a dollar for dollar tax credit to pay for private insurance?

Health insurance provided outside of the realm of the business gets the cost off the business's books. One of the reasons we are failing when competing with socialist economies is that they do not have to carry any health care costs at all on their books. Sometimes socialistic methods are the most effective capitalistic profit generators, ask anyone from Germany or China, or from the increasingly successful Scandanavian countries. We are so wrapped up in our own myth of American infallibilty, we find it impossible to see where other systems have actually led to more, not less, commercial success, by spreading certain costs over the entire populace instead of burdening business with them. If health care costs were removed from GM, for example, the price of an American car would drop $5,000 or more immediately.

I'm not disagreeing, personally I think socialized medicine will spur small business growth...

Here here.

And yet as we speak, China and Vietnam are adopting more and more capitalistic ways. China has Billionaires and 350000 millionaires.

How do you figure that when they calculated that GM cars cost $2000 more to build than a Jap car? Same pool of labor. Only difference is they negotiated badly when they were doing well.

It's better than nothing, but it has a few problems. It doesn't cover the entire cost of health insurance for many if not most people and it does nothing to address administrative and middle-man/insurance costs. Every other country that has adopted universal health care has also taken effective steps to reduce administrative costs by doing things like computerizing records. I'd go even further and completely bypass the private health insurance industry which is the middle man and expand Medicare for everyone.

China and Vietnam are still a lot more socialist. They were coming from an extreme so naturally they adopted more capitalistic ways.

Union vs. non-union labor + retirement benefits. Yes they negotiated badly.