Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Understanding how the tax system works
Published on March 21, 2004 By Draginol In Business

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.


Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Mar 21, 2004
The only reason I support Bush's tax plan is because I figure the less of my money he has to control the better.....though, Bush doesn't seem to have any problem spending money he doesn't have.
on Mar 22, 2004
Good job.
on Mar 22, 2004
Hmm thanks for explaining that a little more.
on Mar 22, 2004
Personally I would prefer if all governments had to balance the books or maintain a slight surplus and could only go into deficit spending if they get 80%+ support (so unless they have a massive majority they need help from opposition). Too many governments spend money they dont have and leave someone else to pick up the pieces then complain that the new government has raised taxes or cut funding to some service because they are trying to pay off the debts. I dont think this is specific to any single party just a tendancy of political parties that if they can make themselves more popular in the short term and help get re-elected then they are willing to not worry about the longer term consequences of overspending.
on Mar 22, 2004
Brad
there is a serious problem with your arguement. A tax increase would be on PERSONAL tax NOT company tax. This would encourage all these small business owners to re-invest profits into their businesses and not take it out. This would encourage further employment the very thing your blog says needs to be done.

I have no problems with the givernment encouraging bosses to re-invest earnings in their company. Let's be honest here 200k is plenty of money to live on. Add this to the added value to the business of NOT removing more than 200k salary and things look even better. Which would you rather see some small business owner taking 300k salary and the compnay only employing 35 people or the owner taking 200k salary and the company employing 37 people? Guess which one Kerry prefers?

paul.
on Mar 22, 2004
Solitair, your misconception is the root of the problem that Brad is trying to get to. His explaination of how LLCs and S-Corps are dealt with regarding taxes is completely right. Their personal and company taxes are dealt with in the same boat. You are exactly the kind of person this article is directed toward. Kerry is counting on people having the same mindset you do. Please reread this article. I know first hand that Brad is correct having dealt with S-Corp finances myself.

On top of what Brad pointed out, small businesses also get smacked with Single Business Tax.
on Mar 22, 2004
Every small business owner I personally know is "losing money" - at least for tax purposes.
on Mar 22, 2004

If you "lose" money for 5 years straight, then you are begging for a tax audit

Solitair, I have an LLC.  Do you know how it is taxed?  It is taxed the same as my personal taxes.  Please look into tax laws a bit more. 

Also, employees are considered "assets".  The more employees you have, the more taxes you pay.  Great system, right?

on Mar 22, 2004
The more employees you have, the more taxes you pay. Great system, right?


shouldn't you get rid of the employes that are liabilities?

i get what you're saying though.

on Mar 22, 2004

Solitair - listen to what Jill said. Please re-read what I wrote.

Most small businesses are LLCs or S-corporations. Their COMPANY'S REVENUE is integrated into the individual income of the principle owner. If the company make $300,000 so did the individual. It has nothing to do with how much the owner pays themselves. It has nothing to do with how much they need to "live on". It is how much their company grossed that year. Kerry would, in effect, be raising taxes on small businesses.

Secondly, who are you to decide how much is "plenty" to live on? If you remove the incentive for people to take risks (such as starting a business) then the economy comes to a screaching halt.  In 1998 when the OS/2 market came crashing down, I went two years without any salary living on savings and putting my house on the line to get loans to keep things going. Now, i don't pay myself big bucks even today but if I had a salary of say $201,000, who would blame me? I took the risks and why should I not benefit in proportion to those risks? Good electrical engineers with 10 to 15 years of experience can make $100k easily. So if that same EE is going to take a chance and start their own business, should they not benefit as a result? But again, that has nothing to do with my article. How much money the business owner personally makes has nothing to do with taxes on LLCs or S-corporations.

on Mar 22, 2004
If I understand this correctly, this will do the most damage to small business owners, while big businesses will be able to survive as usual. I don't hate big businesses such as Wal-Mart, but for those that do, does this bother them in the least?

Which would you rather see some small business owner taking 300k salary and the compnay only employing 35 people or the owner taking 200k salary and the company employing 37 people? Guess which one Kerry prefers?


There's also the alternative of still taking 300k salary, but only hiring 33 people instead of 35, which I think would be the choice for most small business owners. After all, I don't know many people who would happily lower their income due to increased taxes. Usually, they'd at least want to raise it enough so that they earn the same as they did before the tax increase.
on Mar 22, 2004
There is far more to this than just the needs of small business owners. While they are certainly benefitting from Bush's tax cuts, it would be more than naive to think that small business owners are the group Bush had in mind when he and his financial team sat down to create this plan. This Bush administration has been the most arrogant in history in it's unabashed support for giving multimillion dollar tax breaks to the very wealthiest in this nation(here we are not talking about those who make $200,000 a year but over a million as a bottom basement figure) at the expense of those who have difficulty supportung their families.Their idea that "putting more money in people's pockets will get them to spend more and therefore stimulate the economy" is hogwash, as the average person got less than $100 dollars as a result of the tax cut, and I doubt having an extra $100 dollars will give anyone an incentive to spend more. Besides, as Brad said in his initial post, he was able to hire ONE person because of the tax cut. Small businesses are not the culprit and will not be the saviors of a job market that is being decimated by overseas outsourcing and cost-cutting by the megacorporations who are both the intended beneficiaries of the Bush tax plan, and the leading cause of lost jobs
. As far as people being rewarded for risk taking, there's nothing wrong with that, but we should remember that risk taking is not the only measure of a human being, and millions of people should not have to suffer so that a few people can have their risk taking skills rewarded to the tune of millions of dollars. No one has skills that are THAT much better or more valuable than other peoples, and, in, essence, the majority of business today is concerned with pulling dollars out of people who have been so weakened by the complexity and hopelessness in the world that they crave any form of distraction they can get, to the delight of corporations everywhere, who have tons of essentially useless or needless items to sell
. George Bush and his ilk have little concern for any form of life on this planet, or for the future. His repeal of over 300 environmental laws in order to make it easier for polluters to do business is another example of how dangerous it is to believe that because you have the ability to make money, you are also a moral and responsible person, and should have the future of this planet entrusted to you. If people weren't forced to spend so much of their time fighting to earn a living, they might realize how truly arrogant and disrespectful of life these people are. No matter how many times Bush says that he believes in God or goes to Church, it means absolutely nothing if he shows no respect for the Earth that God created. If anyone thinks that a person with such obvious disregard for the future has their best interests in mind all I can say is I wish them the best.
on Mar 22, 2004
This Bush administration has been the most arrogant in history in it's unabashed support for giving multimillion dollar tax breaks to the very wealthiest in this nation(here we are not talking about those who make $200,000 a year but over a million as a bottom basement figure) at the expense of those who have difficulty supportung their families.


Just how have they suffered? They benefit from the tax cut as well, although not as much since they don't pay nearly as much in taxes.

Small businesses are not the culprit and will not be the saviors of a job market that is being decimated by overseas outsourcing and cost-cutting by the megacorporations who are both the intended beneficiaries of the Bush tax plan, and the leading cause of lost jobs


I'm of the belief that strong small businesses are good, but with Kerry's plan, small businesses will be hurt the most, and megacorporations the least. How will this help any?

As far as people being rewarded for risk taking, there's nothing wrong with that, but we should remember that risk taking is not the only measure of a human being, and millions of people should not have to suffer so that a few people can have their risk taking skills rewarded to the tune of millions of dollars. No one has skills that are THAT much better or more valuable than other peoples, and, in, essence, the majority of business today is concerned with pulling dollars out of people who have been so weakened by the complexity and hopelessness in the world that they crave any form of distraction they can get, to the delight of corporations everywhere, who have tons of essentially useless or needless items to sell.


Taking risks is not a skill that only a select few have. Anybody can take risks, and those who take risks should not have to suffer because some people would rather make excuses for their situation rather than try to change it.

George Bush and his ilk have little concern for any form of life on this planet, or for the future. His repeal of over 300 environmental laws in order to make it easier for polluters to do business is another example of how dangerous it is to believe that because you have the ability to make money, you are also a moral and responsible person, and should have the future of this planet entrusted to you. If people weren't forced to spend so much of their time fighting to earn a living, they might realize how truly arrogant and disrespectful of life these people are. No matter how many times Bush says that he believes in God or goes to Church, it means absolutely nothing if he shows no respect for the Earth that God created. If anyone thinks that a person with such obvious disregard for the future has their best interests in mind all I can say is I wish them the best.


Maybe, but that has nothing to do with taxes.
on Mar 22, 2004
Julian, your use of the terms "tax cut" and "tax break" are telling of your mindset. A tax break is not giving anything to those rich people. It is just making them pay less than the huge amount they were formally expected to pay.

Hey, I will be one of the first to admit that I am jealous of the Paris Hilton, Trump's kids, etc that were just born into vast wealth. That doesn't mean I think it is justified that the haves should be forced to pay so much more in taxes than the have nots. Life is a game. Some people play the game very successfully and reap huge benefits others have a hard time scraping by. This is a democracy not a socialist or communist government! Julian, if you don't like people being rewarded for their risk taking, you should move to a government where they believe the wealth should be distributed evenly. I don't know where that exists successfully but good luck.

on Mar 22, 2004
Jill, you statement "life is a game" is also telling of the attitude you currently hold. Similar ideaologies are the very reason life is currently in dire straits. Such a philosophy bears a great deal of disrespect for all that is life, including people. I'm not trying to sound preachy or criticize you as a person, as I know we all need to sometimes look at certain aspects of life with detachment in order to function. But when we come to adopt such essentially flippant and ego-oriented attitudes, I think we end up doing no one any good. Life-including this planet, was most definitely not created for us to consider it a game, also because, as we are an integral and important part of life, by treating life as a game, we nescessarily treat ourselves as such. We should also quit playing with notions such as that life "exists for us" or that we can screw around trying to find some government that supports our most base and greed-driven instincts damn the rest of life and the consequences.
Super, if you think getting $100 compared to the over $28,000 that the wealthy receive is a benefit, more power to you, you've obviously learned to do a lot with very little. As for your assertion that the megacorporations will be hurt the least by the election of Kerry, that couldn't be further from the truth. I assure you that a politician with the leanings of Kerry is not in any way out to hurt the small business owner. The very people he is targeting are the megacorporations as they are not contributing to society in any way proportional to what they take from it. While small business owners are using their skill and knowledge to build something for themselves and their families, the vast powers weilded by megacorporations have ended up benefiting only a select few, while creating extremely damaging consequences in many other areas. People in the small business arena should drop the notion that they are in any way related to big business; they are not the favorites of the right wing pols and they are also, on the very positive side, not people inclined to have reckless disregard for anything but their need to build wealth(power). While the small business owner may benefit in some way from Bush's tax cut, they are not benefiting even remotely as much as big business. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the benefit they receive compareed to the truly rich is something like that $100 the average person gets compared to the $28,000 received by
the moderately wealthy. Your third comment is another popular American notion:that those who succeed do so because they make the effort and those who don't get anywhere are in that position because they aren't trying hard enough. I think that idea ignores the fact that many people either are not oriented towards business success or do not posess the personality traits needed for such success. In what way does that make them less valuable as human beings? I think the millions of people who sweat day in and out to support their families would take great offense at your insinuation that they are "making excuses for their situation". After all, there is infinitely more to life than money, and because a person has gained the ability, much to his/her credit, to succeed in moneymaking shouldn't cause them to lose compassion for their fellow men and women, neither should it lead to arrogance, because, let's face it, you don't have to be a genius to succeed in business(though I know a lot of business people like to think of themselves in such glowing terms, with what then do we describe the likes of Einstein, Picasso, or Mozart? Does anyone really believe that it takes THAT kind of other-worldly intelligence to succeed in business?). And the form of government we have should not inordinately favor people with business skills over those who don't have them. People of all interests should be able to make a good living, especially with the riches this country has to offer. There is no excuse for any other situation to exsist. Lastly, although in appearance the administration's attitude on environmental issues would seem not to have anything to do with taxes, I would say that what a person/group does concerning one issue is very likely connected in orientation and attitude to what they do concerning another. A person with an unhealthy attitude towards life as a whole is unlikely to be overly concerned with people as a whole, hence the Bush tax plan's preposterously unbalanced emphasis on the top percent or so of the economic strata. Can we really afford to delude ourselves into thinking that Bush or anyone else who shares his ideaology is really planning to help everyone out by literally throwing money at those who have too much? Lastly, in anticipation of any argument saying in effect "you have no right to tell people they have too much money, people should be able to make whatever they can,etc., I've got to say that I'm not trying to pontificate or tell people anything. I know that's none of my beeswax or wehatever. But as to wether there is a thing such as "too much" money, I think there is. Money becomes, in my opinion, too much when it ceases to serve the purpose of supporting a person(even if that means support in an extravagant way), and becomes something which is used to excercize power, whether or not that power is used to make more money. Because I think it's safe to assume that a person with hundreds of millions is not in any danger of losing their wealthy lifestyle in their lifetimes, unless they do something reckless. So what, then becomes the motivation? I would guess power.
6 Pages1 2 3  Last