Draginol Draginol

Why John Kerry's tax increase will cost jobs

Why John Kerry's tax increase will cost jobs

Understanding how the tax system works

According to the US Department of Labor, about 55% of Americans are employed by small businesses. That is, companies with fewer than 50 employees total. And while I don't have the statistics handy, something like 70% of Americans are employed by companies with fewer than 1000 employees.

This is important when one considers who to vote for in the next election. John Kerry has stated that he will raise the taxes on those who make more than $200,000 in income yearly. He is counting on people to imagine that those people are just a bunch of rich guys. You know, those Fortune 500 executives busy screwing their employees no doubt.

But statistically, that's not who they are. While those making $200,000 or more per year only represents 2% of the population, most of them are owners of small businesses. And that $200,000 isn't their salary, per se. It's their company's income.

There are 3 main ways to form a business in the United States.  There is the LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), S-corporation, and C-corporation.  Most small businesses are formed as either LLCs or S-corporations. From a tax point of view, the principle owner of the company's taxes are integrated with the company's revenue. In theory, this lowers his tax burden. But in practice, it really makes small business at the mercy of the individual tax rates. 

When Bush lowered the individual tax rates, in effect what he did is give small businesses a tax break. As a result, these businesses were able to hire more people. That is what happened at Stardock, who operates this site. Without those tax cuts, it's unlikely this site would exist in its current form (i.e. free).  The tax cut allowed us to hire an additional person.  The same effect occurred across the United States in thousands of small businesses everywhere. Not immediately of course, but gradually as small businesses recovered their losses and then began to build up again.

So what happens if this tax cut is removed? What if someone like John Kerry decides he wants to cut the deficit by some trivial amount by raising taxes on "the rich"? Small businesses will either have to make up those taxes in increased revenue or lay off the people they hired from the previous tax cut.

Tax cuts aren't always the answer, btw. In the mid 90s when unemployment was effectively nil, tax cuts would accomplish little to help the economy. Virtually everyone was employed. But when you're in an economic weak patch, as we've recently experienced, and you're trying to create jobs then the best way to do that is to try to make sure businesses have as much money as they can to hire those people looking for jobs.

And small businesses, by their nature, tend to be more efficient than "big business". Huge corporations tend to be not much more efficient than the government with money. That's why the Bush tax plan targeted individual income instead of cutting corporate taxes. They recognized that if you want to create jobs and get the economy moving that the best bang for the buck is to get money back into the hands of those LLCs and S-corps who are more likely to hire more people than buy a second mansion or something.

Raise those taxes and you're literally sucking capital out of small businesses at a time when job creation should be a priority. And that is why John Kerry's tax increase plan would hurt the economy. And potentially it would even increase the deficit as those people who lose their jobs are no longer paying taxes.

54,703 views 79 replies
Reply #51 Top
What no one has mentioned is that Kerry does not propose to raise taxes(which he only plans to do by eliminating the highly controversial Bush tax cut) without already having a thoroughly thought-out plan to create jobs. Kerry's team has put together a detailed plan which they say will create ten-million jobs in the next four years. It doesn't sound to me that anyone could be terribly hurt by the creation of that many jobs, compared to the three million or so that Bush has lost..
KarmaGirl, the reason we have a healthcare problem is that the rest of the industrialized world has sorted this out already and we're still trying to figure ou ift we want to end people's worries about whether or not they can afford to go to the doctor. Perhaps our system is alright compared to a hundred years ago, but we deserve better i.e. what the rest of the modern world has. There is also no reason why we should accept second best in something as important as healthcare when we make good and sure that Jack and Jill millionaire can afford the gas on their Lear jet. As to your assertion that we would "run into a mess" if we tried to implement a total healthcare system, I ask why you would think that when numerous other nations have had no trouble with it. Are we somehow more inept at governance than they are? I doubt it. The only thing that stands in the way is the fear of the big pharmaceuticals that they may lose out on a whopper of a handout, like the one Bush just gave them with his "drug plan"(a plan for the drug COMPANIES, maybe, but not for the drug purchaser).
Smooth seas, what you say about the parties being equally guilty of being supported by big business is only true if you look at the NUMBER of contributions the parties receive. For example, the Democrats may get 53 of 100 contributions while the Republicans get 47, but the Republican contributors are the really big fish and therefore the Republicans make out with a MUCH bigger contribution in terms of dollars. How else can one account for the fact that Bush has managed to raise $100 million more than Kerry, to create THE largest warchest in Presidential history? Believe me, it doesn't come from small businesses or people like you and me.
The single biggest fault in logic of all the right wing posts on this blog is that, for some reason, you all act as if Kerry will just raise taxes without a plan to nullify any ill affect from such a raise. Do you really allow yourselves to think that the Republicans are more interested in creating jobs than the Democrats? Or, if yo do, that Kerry just figure "the hell with all those people out there, I'll just raise taxes so I can give away money to the "lazy". The Democratic party is the party of the worker. It is abd always has been. The Republicans used to present an alternative, but now that they have totally lost touch with everyone but the wealthiest(and those who's goal it is to emulate them), they really don't. They manage to hold onto the popular votes that they have by convincing people that they have cornered the market on Religion and Family values. As if Democrats don't have families and are a group of devil-worshipping hedonists bent on dragging the country into moral corruption. Come on! I, personally, don't think it very religious for a President to affectively use God as a political weapon by making sure everyone knows how religious he is(which his actions don't back up). It would be a real error to enter into a discussion with a Republican and accept, as if it were handed down from on high, that Bush wants to lower taxes and create jobs and Kerry wants to raise taxes and destroy the job market. That's kindergarten logic and it just doesn't hold with the facts.
OT: before I do it here and raise anyone's ire, is there any place to send a very small suggestion concerning a Stardock product where it might get looked at? Although we may disagree politically, I do love the hell out of Mr. Wardell's products. They blow me away every day with their thoughtful design and attention to detail. That's probably something we can all agree on!
Reply #52 Top

Ack, some of these comments are giving me a headache.

Where to start..

1) Sam: 37 million Americans don't have health insurance. Not PERCENT. There are roughly 300 million Americans.

2) Julian/Sam: Regardless of how you wish the system worked, the reality of the situation is that John Kerry's tax increase would MOSTLY affect small businesses. So if Kerry gets elected and manages to raise those taxes, I am sure you will be first in line to pay a small but fair fee to use JoeUser.com right? Since it was the tax cut that paid for the salary of one of our new people here at the company.

3) I don't think I could explain LLCs or S-corporations any more simply than I did in this article. LLCs/S-corpts are designed to limit the liability on individuals running companies. The company's revenue is treated as part of their personal income. The owner's salary is totally irrelevant to how much or how little they get taxed because the company's revenue is treated as income for that individual. Most small businesses make more than $200,000 per year and therefore would be most affected by a tax increase.  Therefore they would either have to find a way to make up those costs or cut expenses.

4) Deficits do not indicate the need for tax increases. They can just as easily point to a need to cut expenses. This is how it works in the real world. If my household is spending more money than it is earning, I can't just wave a magic wand and have more money come in. I would have to cut my costs.

5) Please don't pollute my article with diatribes on Kyoto. Write your own article on that and then it can be discussed.

Reply #53 Top
Brad it truly depends on who is looking at it. Since other factors are what will truly effect overall net job creation or loss, if you are a sole proprietor making less than 200k than the effect may be that somebody else is paying down that portion of the debt for which it covers. The point is you see a negative effect for a tax hike which may target you but many of the 98% that don't make 200k+ may considers this a positive effect.

There are a hell of a lot of sole proprietorships, which I'm sure their owners consider to be small businesses, that do not make more than 200k. And others that would make 199K if Kerry gets elected and gets this type of plan through. And if someone is providing their employees healthcare, maybe what gets proposed on this aspect of things, will benefit small businesses that are a bit above 200k. In any case it's too early in the process to see who would and who wouldn't benefit.

The point being don't expect others to not point out how single minded politics can be. I suspect many would be just as happy to visit a new blog site called JoeSmo set up by some liberal business owner who happens to a get a break from the employee health care incentives that are also being proposed in the Kerry plan.

Certainly deficits don't by themselves indicate the need for a tax hike. And I suspect we will need to run a big one when the baby boomers retire en masse just to satisfy demand for bonds. We are picking away at the budget which is a good effect of the cut. But our government has waved their magic wand and spent more than they had so I can't think of a better group of people to pay for the expenses than those who voted them in and can afford it most.

Julian the corporate contribution figures were dollar percentile. The dems got more during the last election. A lot from tech companies. You also have to include house and senate seats that are up for grabs.
In any case a good example is cabletv regulation. It has gone from regulation to deregulation several times and the cable companies were donating millions to which ever party or politician looked the most promising at the time. They are currently being looked into again because of all the consolidation and unfair business practices. It's been kind of interesting to watch. These companies, in particular the networks, are definately screwing the consumer.
Reply #54 Top

Brad it truly depends on who is looking at it. Since other factors are what will truly effect overall net job creation or loss, if you are a sole proprietor making less than 200k than the effect may be that somebody else is paying down that portion of the debt for which it covers. The point is you see a negative effect for a tax hike which may target you but many of the 98% that don't make 200k+ may considers this a positive effect.

What possible positive effect would people see if taxes are raised? Because the deficit might be (slightly) lower? How does that benefit the average person?

What we DO know, for sure, is that higher taxes on people making $200k or more is not going to help them. And there's no evidence it will help those who make less than $200k. And I can tell you for a fact right now that such a tax increase will harm us.

You have to first demonstrate that anyone woudl plausible benefit from Kerry's propsed tax increase. I think I've provided ample evidence of the harm it will do.

suspect many would be just as happy to visit a new blog site called JoeSmo set up by some liberal business owner who happens to a get a break from the employee health care incentives that are also being proposed in the Kerry plan.

Most companies provide employee health care. We do. And have for years. Do you really think most small businesses don't provide their employees health care?

I can't think of a better group of people to pay for the expenses than those who voted them in and can afford it most.

That's my point - the rich won't suffer one iota. Small business won't suffer in the way you're imaginging. The ones who will suffer are the people who get laid off.

I hate to bring bitter reality in this but the typical small business making say $5 million per year that is an S-corp that sees their taxes go up and is now running at a loss is going to do what most businesses do - they'er going to cut expenses and that means lay someone off.

That is kind of what I'm getting at - the ones who will suffer aren't rich people. It's working people who get laid off because the company's cash flow got squashed.  That's not a theory, that's a fact.

Reply #55 Top
I just read news that Kerry plans to decrease local businesses tax by 5% and get rid of tax loopholes for businesses that export jobs out of USA.
Reply #56 Top
Brad, do you think that no one benefitted when Clinton managed to completely eliminate the deficit during his administration? During that time, we had great unemployment rates and an economic boom. What you claim to be not a theory, but a fact, has major problems with it. First of all, what you are doing here amounts to short-term thinking with blinders on. These tax cuts are a quick fix that ignore fundamental issues in both economics and ethics. There is much more to sound economic theory than just the quick and temporary creation of jobs by giving companies a tax break. The deficit, along with many other long term factors MUST be taken into consideration. If you fail to do so, the country, including it's children, will pay in the long run. I am not pulling this out of thin air. The well-respected economists from this nation's leading universities whom I mentioned in my other posts have all been saying that we won't see the devastating effects of the Bush tax cuts on the nation's economy until at least twelve years from now. But that is the Republican strategy. To get into office and enact legislation that will criple the government's ability to do what it was intended to do, so that down the road when it flounders, they can say "oh, you see, big government is bad, we better privatize it all" when they were responsible for the problem in the first place. The fact that SOME people might derive SOME positive benefits from giving companies a large tax break while the average citizen gets next to nothing is only a fact because the current legislation is completely skewed towards business. It is not a natural law, it is only relevant because our system, which is in severe need of fixing, promotes this situation.
As to these miraculous benefits in the employment rates that we're supposed to see from all this. You yourself said that your company was only able to hire ONE additional person because of the tax cut. I would say that Stardock is definitely larger than the average small business, so how many people do you think the smaller businesses will be able to hire? At that rate, it would take more than three million small businesses to hire people just to undo the damage Bush has caused while he's been in office! What's the next step, that we completely eliminate all taxation on businesses and the wealthy so they can hire more people? There are many other ways to create jobs than by doing everything big businesses' way. If we can't think of any other way to stimulate job growth than this, our minds must truly be in a state of poverty. I'm all for businesses thriving and us being competitive in the world market, but the problem is, the Republicans make it the ONLY focus. Business is not all of life, and no matter what positive effects it may create, it also creates numerous bad ones, and it's concerns should not be given the kind of rediculously unbalanced prority that they have been receiving in past years. If we keep up like this, we may have a few good years in the immediate future, but in the long term, we will all suffer greatly.. And though you may disagree with this now, I can guarantee that when you're 70 years old and soaking up the sun on the back porch, if we haven't turned this around, you will realize that long-term and holistic thinking is what represents the true facts, not theories cooked up by special interests whose main concern is their immediate benefit. That's just not how the real world works.
Reply #57 Top
"What possible positive effect would people see if taxes are raised? Because the deficit might be (slightly) lower? How does that benefit the average person?"

What do you expect miracles? We have to pay for the war. It's that simple. Ask Bush Sr. Ask any good objective economist. Visit the Feds website and read the truth instead of the lies on the partisan sites and you will realize that even if Bush gets reelected he will have to raise taxes. No need to read any lips this time. History repeats itself quickly sometimes.


"Most companies provide employee health care. We do. And have for years. Do you really think most small businesses don't provide their employees health care?"
Basically all above 50 employees provide coverage. But there are a lot of small businesses that don't. Mostly those with say 10 or fewer employees. So its a fair number of businesses but not a large percentage of the working population. Many of the small businesses around here get the large group rates by going through the Chamber of Commerce which is basically the same thing that he is talking about. As big businesses send jobs overseas we need to make sure the new smaller businesses taking their place provide health insurance because we simply can't afford a government run health care system.

"That's my point - the rich won't suffer one iota. Small business won't suffer in the way you're imagining.
I never said small business or the rich would suffer. You are putting words in others mouths as you often do here.

Reply #58 Top
Mr. Wardell, would you be willing, if Kerry is elected, to keep us posted(in whatever level of detail you would be willing, of course) on how his presidency is affecting your business? I think that would be interesting. OT: how come my points went to -29 and my rank from in the 300's to 3,482, especially when there only seems top be 2,000 users listed in the rankings? Did I do something wrong? If so, please tell me what it is so that I can refrain from repeating my mistake.
Reply #59 Top
From johnkerry.com:

Small businesses owners that create jobs would pay lower taxes and provide health care to their workers would pay lower taxes
under Kerry than under Bush. Here are four examples of small businesses and how they fare under the tax plans of Kerry and Bush:

95% of small business owner making $200,000 (AGI) even if they do not create any jobs.
Under Kerry Plan: No tax change
Under Bush Plan: No tax change

A small business owner making $100,000 who hires 1 additional worker making $30,000
Under Kerry Plan: $2,295 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut
A small business owner making $250,000 who hires 2 additional workers making $30,000:
Under Kerry Plan: $2,739 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut

A small business owner making $500,000 who hires 4 additional workers making $50,000
Under Kerry Plan: $2,969 tax cut
Under Bush Plan: No tax cut

*Kerry Net Tax Cut including effects of repeal of the Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,000 and the new jobs tax credit.

Note: This table does not include the impact of Kerry's proposal to provide a tax credit for small businesses that buy health insurance for their workers.

-rob
Reply #60 Top
Hey, Rob, great job. Looks like you really did your homework here. I wonder if those who posted on the Bush side of this forum would vote for Kerry if it was absolutely certain that they would benefit from it, or if they're so diehard that they'll vote Republican even if it is guaranteed to hurt their interests. To me, that does'nt seem like smart business!
Reply #61 Top

Julian: Regarding points - I'm not sure why your points wer elow. Soem people clearly marked something you did as trolling. I gave you an insightful to counter that so you should have more points now.

Now regarding propaganda - I'm not here to dish out propaganda nor be fed it by you guys either. But some of you are eating it up hook, line and sinker.

Why? Look waht Rob is writing. Nice and simple. Fed in and regurgitated.  So tell me Rob, under this plan would this affect small businesses that are S corps? LLCs? C-corps? Or all of the above? You don't know do you? And how woudl this plan work? Our corporate taxes don't have surveys  on them. They don't know whether we've added employees or not. It's just election year BS designed to fool people who don't have a clue about how taxes and businesses work.

Look at this thread. People who don't know the difference between LLCs, S-corps and C-corps insisting they know what they're talking about.

It's this simple: IF you raise the iincome tax rate on those who make more than $200,000 per year you automatically affect those who are filed under LLC and S-corporations.  Kerry's "stuff" would only realistically affect C-corporations.

And, btw, giving Clinton credit for the "balanced budget" is utter nonsense. The only credit they really deserve is the same as the Republican congress: They controlled spending increases. The deficit disappeared, briefly, largely because of the capital gains taxes during the stock bubble. The deficits today have little to do with the "Bush tax cut".

That said, as I mentioned in the original article, sometimes you can raise taxes without affecting jobs such as when you ahve full employment which we did during the Clinton years. But right now, people are looking for jobs and if you suck out the capital from small businesses, that's what's going to happen.  I'm not saying what Bush's campaign site is nor am I impressed with people quoting Kerry's talking points. I am telling you how the real world works as someone who runs a small business and has extensive first hand experience.

Reply #62 Top
Brad: Without going in to your personal salary information (unless you feel it necessary!), it would be interesting to know how many employees work for you at StarDock, and what kind of money you guys make. Are you a small business as in the US definition, (described as a company with up to 500 employees) or a small business in perhaps what most people might think of as a "small business" ... perhaps 3 - 20 employees?

Its important to point out I think at this stage that not all "small businesses" are the same... perhaps a company with 500 employees doesn’t actually require the same tax breaks / benefits as one with 5.

Are you saying that if the tax went up, you as the boss would be FORCED (by the government) to lay people off, due to you (and any partners you may have) personally not earning enough? Don't get me wrong, I believe that people who start and run businesses do *deserve* to be paid well, but don’t confuse the absolute reason for people getting laid off.

KarmaGirl: The reason we call it *free* healthcare, is that sometimes, it is actually free... Granted, we pay out of our tax (as with many things) which is calculated as a percentage of your earnings... a *fair* way of doing things, as people who earn less, pay less. The really important thing, is that if you lose you job, and are unemployed, even for the rest of your life, you still get health care, you can still see your GP, you can still see your dentist, you can still have your brain tumour removed, you can still have your heart transplant or blood transfusion. Prescriptions are a fixed fee of about £5 (currently about $8) other than pensioners, students, and the unemployed who get concessions. This is really the heart of socialism, and I believe the idea of the NHS actually comes from an idea in the Communist manifesto. Oh no... Now I've gone and said the "C" word.
Reply #63 Top
Brad,
one point I'm not sure of here is what you actually think of your tax system. You are obviously oppossed to Kerry raising taxes but what are your feelings abou tthe actual system. I know that I find it very strange that employees are considered assets and therefore you're taxed before you pay their salaries. This actually taxes them twice as they'll also have to pay tax? What are your views on a separation of personal from business tax? What in your view is the benefit of having the two merged?

Paul.
Reply #64 Top

KarmaGirl: The reason we call it *free* healthcare, is that sometimes, it is actually free... Granted, we pay out of our tax (as with many things) which is calculated as a percentage of your earnings... a *fair* way of doing things, as people who earn less, pay less

If somebody has to pay for it, it's not free.  It's fair that people who make more pay more but don't benefit anymore than people who don't even have a job?  How is that fair?

This is really the heart of socialism

That is nice, but that last time I checked, Americans weren't socialists.  (Though it is starting to feel like we are....)

 

 

Reply #65 Top
Jill, that’s exactly my point about socialism; America isn’t a socialist country (one reason as to why we really differ and perhaps just don’t get this). In-bred socialism! Brad's other post re. The differences between Europe and USA goes in to this in much more detail. Its important to note that not all people in Europe are socialists, and even many Labour voters don’t like the term.

How is this scenario fair?...

I have paid insurance my whole life, and never been ill. I’m 50. I get fired. I lose my benefits, and can’t afford private healthcare. I find out I have cancer, and can’t get the best treatment. Rather than getting the treatment I have paid for over the years, I get a second rate deal.

It’s really very strange for me. I’ve always thought that socialism (in most forms) is a good thing. To me (and I mean no personal disrespect!) it just seems like the good thing to do; the good "Christian" thing to do. America prides itself on being primarily Christian "God bless America" country in a much bigger way than any country in Europe, and yet this is just an inconceivable thing to do for (some) Americans.

We have our fair share of conservatives here too who think we should adopt a system similar to America's, and we have private healthcare services also. They aim to provide shorter waiting lists, and nicer "newer" hospitals, though most of the time they seem to "borrow" NHS resources.

With regards to you pointing out that the health service is not really free; its true, not much in this day and age is. What’s important though, is that it is free to those who are in need of it being free.

I just don’t get why this concept goes over the top of so many people’s heads on the other side of the pond. Is there a chance that insurance companies are working with drug manufacturing companies, or maybe even private hospitals (who are also interested in profit) to get more out of the "consumer"? It’s almost scary to think of an entire system being run as a business.
Reply #66 Top

Jill, that’s exactly my point about socialism;

Did I miss where "Jill" said anything about socialism? 

I just don’t get why this concept goes over the top of so many people’s heads on the other side of the pond.

So, if people don't agree with you, they simply "don't understand"?  Does it occur to you that there are people who don't want to live in a socialist nation? 

I have paid insurance my whole life, and never been ill. I’m 50. I get fired. I lose my benefits, and can’t afford private healthcare. I find out I have cancer, and can’t get the best treatment. Rather than getting the treatment I have paid for over the years, I get a second rate deal.

The care in the US doesn't work that way.  I have seen many doctors when I didn't have healthcare.  I just had to pay for it out of pocket (some of which was on a payment plan).  It's not like you will get denied just because you don't have insurance.  There is also government programs for people who are unemployed as well as state programs and low cost medical programs.

it just seems like the good thing to do; the good "Christian" thing to do. America prides itself on being primarily Christian "God bless America" country

That is an assumption.  "God" is a non-denominational god.  We are the melting pot.  I also don't understand why people put "good" and "Christian" together as a reason to do anything.  If Churches are so important, there is nothing stopping them from getting group coverage for their "needy".  Why does it have to be the government?

But, the whole healthcare debate is really detracting from what the original article was about.  The focus (as quoted from Brad) is:

That said, as I mentioned in the original article, sometimes you can raise taxes without affecting jobs such as when you have full employment which we did during the Clinton years. But right now, people are looking for jobs and if you suck out the capital from small businesses, that's what's going to happen. I'm not saying what Bush's campaign site is nor am I impressed with people quoting Kerry's talking points. I am telling you how the real world works as someone who runs a small business and has extensive first hand experience.

Reply #67 Top
Ooops. Sorry Jill! My mistake.

KarmaGirl... I think we might sort of agree on this now? It’s just possible that Americans don’t really get our idealisms, and we don’t really get yours. It’s the "in-bred socialism" thing.

Is cancer treatment that cheap there that you can just "pay" for it when you need it? I thought we were talking tens, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment. I dont have those kinds of savings.

The thing I find most strange is that you will probably still feel the same way if you actually get fired and sick! "In-bred capitalism?"

BTW. I haven’t been to church in years, and even then its only ever been for weddings / funerals etc. I’m certainly no Jesus freak and I was just making a point - which I think is totally valid. Also, as you have mentioned before: The government wouldn’t really pay.... you and every other taxpayer would.

Come on… cut me some slack here! Do you honestly not see any sense in this kind of system?

Brad... sorry for the topic hi-jack.
Reply #68 Top

Come on… cut me some slack here! Do you honestly not see any sense in this kind of system?

Nope.  If I were to save that same money that I would have to pay in taxes for healthcare (which is currently paid for my employer) I would be able to afford personal coverage if I lost my job.  I don't see why I should have to pay for other people who live at or past their financial means.

Hospitals have to treat you.  It may not be cheap, but you won't die.  They will also work out affordable treatment plans.  Coming from somebody who is sick a lot and had quite some time without insurance, I can tell you that you can work it out.  And, as I said, there are also government programs that cover people who are truly poor.  And, as a side note, I have a cancer policy that I purchase on my own (doesn't require my company) that will pay me (even if my insurance covers it) $50,000 if I am diagnosed with cancer (other than skin).  You know how much it costs?  $15.92 per month.

Reply #69 Top
$15.92 a month for cancer alone? Ouch.

I suppose women cost more than men and without knowing details of age or smoking history I can;t really judge. All I know is that for about the same (£9) I get 150k critical illness insurance which covers cancer, loss of limb, eyesight, etc. On top on my standard company medical insurance.

I thought the US was suppossed to be cheap.

Paul.
Reply #70 Top

hehe, I missed a 0, that should be $500,000

$15.92 is cheap.... That is about the cost of 3 days of lunch......

Reply #71 Top
I'm going to have to take issue with the central premise of this article, that "most" people earning over $200K/year are small business owners. Check out this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A488-2004Feb23?language=printer

Internal Revenue Service statistics cited by a Democratic senator this month show that the vast majority of small businesses do not earn nearly enough money to fall into the highest income tax bracket. According to IRS data from the 2001 tax year, 3.8 percent of the 18.2 million business tax returns filed that year reported taxable income of $200,000 or more. The top tax bracket last year kicked in at $311,950 of taxable income."

There's some further discussion on the subject, but it seems that quite a large fraction of the people receiving over $200K/year are not smalli business owners.

The Republican response was that

Treasury officials asserted yesterday that about 75 percent of top-bracket tax returns are from "small-business owners."

but

Economists say the broad Republican definition of "small-business man" includes not only doctors, lawyers and management consultants but also chief executives who earn $3,000 renting out their chalets in Aspen or report $10,000 in speaking fees.

and

If the definition is revised to stipulate that more than half a small-business person's income has to be from small-business activities, then only one-quarter of filers in the top income tax brackets would be considered entrepreneurs

So if one accepts that data as accurate, it would seem that the Kerry tax cuts don't touch most small businesses, and primarily take money from people who cannot really be described as small businessmen. Stardock may happen to be unlucky enough to be one of the businesses that's hurt, which is too bad, but it seems that generalizing from Stardock to the broader economy is problematic at best.
Reply #72 Top
Ah,
cost of living differences. explains the difference in costs.

paul.
Reply #73 Top

Vincible: Nothing you linked to even remotely indicates that small businesses aren't the ones who represent the bulk of those making $200k or more.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue -- which is one reason why it gets on my nerves when non-business people (not you vincible) get so haughty about discussing it when they're clueless --.

Politicians regularly and cyncially switch between C-corporations and S-corps/LLCs because it's politically useful. But an S-corp and an LLC is just as much as a company as Sears or GM is. They just are filed different for tax purposes.

The primary reason someone creates an LLC or an S-corporation is liability.  I think I'll just write another article on this because few will read it at this far down on this one.

Reply #74 Top
Hmm... that last quote seemed to me like it was pretty clearly saying that most people in the top bracket were not small businessmen in the way we normally think of them. (The one about how if you require half the income to be small-business related, then less than a quarter of people in the top bracket qualify as entrepreneurs.) I guess I will await your blog on the subject.

But regardless of what you think of this article, what's your reason for saying that most people in the top bracket are small businessmen? That's something you say pretty often but I've never seen you cite a source for it.
Reply #75 Top
Vincible: People can claim whatever they want. But without evidence to prove it. I had already done my research when I made this original article and the majority of those who file tax returns that make over $200k or more are business owners.