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 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Mar 24, 2004
Sam, in this country, Republicans, rather than use taxpayer dollars to fund valuable social programs(as you do in Europe and most humane and sensible countries also do), prefer to funnel this money to the wealthiest people in this country, in the name of "smaller government".


Can you tell me how the government funnels money to the wealthiest? I'll continue to repeat this: the government is simply not taking as much money from the wealthy. After all, believing that jobs help the country more than handouts do.

The reason they want a smaller government is so there is less regulation on business, and large corporations can continue to have their cake and eat it-along with everyone else's. If you believe that people, especially those with millions of dollars, should contribute in any way to those less fortunate, they call you a "tax and spend liberal".


I don't like the words "less fortunate" as it implies that the wealthy become wealthy by luck and not through hard work, and it implies that poor people become poor through no fault of their own. Sure, it's not as fluffy bunny and lollipops to think that some people work hard to become successful while others don't work at all and become poor, but that's the reality of the world.

Also, I don't see anybody arguing against that the government should take away programs that'll provide the basic necessities for people, such as food.

This may sound "unpatriotic", but to me it is no freind of his country who watches it become swamped in hypocrisy and doesn't at least say: this is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned, that we fought a long and costly war with your country to create.We are the last major industrial country without a real healthcare plan, and there are scores of other areas where our politicians also show disregard for the people they are supposedly representing. But if you say that you're for solid social programs, right-wingers will call you a socialist. You don't have to be a socialist to give a damn about other people, you just have to be in touch with your humanity. Believe, me, Sam, there are many in this country who wish we had responsible government as in Europe, and to show our responibility to the world by joining it-but we find our voices drowned out by the self-interested and the unnattentive.


You're right. This is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. They would have so many heart attacks to see how our country gives so many handouts. Also, we do have a healthcare plan, and it works well. I don't see millions of people dying as supporters of universal health care would want me to believe is happening. Also, considering how much we already help the "less fortunate", I do think there's nothing inaccurate about calling those who want to tax the wealthy more (thereby killing more jobs, thereby placing more people into poverty) socialists.
If our government is irrresponsible because it expects people not to be complete sponges to handouts, then I guess we must be one of the most irresponsible governments in the world.
on Mar 24, 2004
Better that Kerry tax successful small business owners than to tax the children of us all.

-rob
on Mar 25, 2004
Ask the thousands of seniors without prescription drug coverage if they think our current healthcare plan "works well". While you worry to no end that the ultra-rich might lose a million here or a million there, you fail to take into account that there is much more to life than accumulating wealth and that doing so does little or nothing for the GLOBAL GOOD. To the contrary, the policies of those who believe that the universe revolves around business almost always treat nature with disrespect, but who gives a damn if we can make people with $500 million dollars get $100 million more? Isn't it worth it? They can buy some more private jets and buy more influence in Washington so that they can have even more legislation written in their favor, while we dump more mercury into the environment and eventually kill off more species than we already have. And what have they contributed besides these supposed jobs, which despite what has been written elsewhere in this blog, are NOT a given fact, as upheld by the reality that the Bush administration has lost a tremendous amount of jobs, and their rediculous predictions of job growth go uncorroborated, and it is unlikely they ever will be.
Even if it were the case that the ONLY way to create jobs were to allow businesses to create more jobs by lowering the taxes on them, I don't see why that means that the corporate officers, etc., of these corporations should benefit in a wildly disproportionate way and that because they would be creating jobs for people in this country that they should have virtually free reign to destroy the environment and distort the intentions and nature of government to suit their purpose.
Rather than listen to right-wingers repeat their theories ad nauseum, no matter that they have very little real world evidence to back them up, I consider it prudent to listen to the overwhelming majority of economists(people who study this for a living) who dispute these theories. The articles I have read by some of these people are clear, elegant, to the point, and indisputable, unless you've already made up you mind.
But the fact is, the majority of business people will side with the Republicans because their policies promise riches in the short term. But this is a nescessarily personal, narrow focus. It does not take into account any other area of life than what you've got in your pocket, and we all know there's more to it than that.
Super, I'm not a fluffy bunny and lollipops kind of guy, and I don't believe that every wino on the street should be given an apartment on Park Avenue. But I reiterate my argument from another post: people who have talent in business should not be the only talented people who make out well in this life. THAT'S what you call disproportionate reward, when a group of people, likely equaled or superceded in talent by many others, make out better than the rest because their area of interest happens to lie in proximity to the trough. You don't think there are people out there who work and think as hard as anyone in business? Astrophysicists, for one, think their A**ES of about things so complicated it would make most of our heads spin, but they don't get paid like a businessperson or even a politician. Yet I would be more comfortable being governed by a person with the mindset of a scientist than that of a businessperson or politician, because they think of things far realer and deeper than most of us, and that cultivates a mindset of respect for life and an open-mindedness that you'll never find in Washington or the boardroom. I think that underlies the basis of what Ive said in the past posts: most people who support the republicans are looking through a narrow field of vision, concentrating on one thing, and I understand that because a person in business has to be interested in making his/her business grow. But there is a much greter reality to this, and if one takes the time, I think, to examine some of the issues more carefully, one will see that there will, in the long run, be too much lost if we focus on one thing and ignore everything else.
I was also more than puzzled by the assertion that the Founding Fathers, an idealistic and human group if ever there was one, would "have so many heart attacks" to see all these supposed handouts(the real handouts go to the big corporations, if not, as you argue, in taxes, then at least in the form of the sycophantic treatmentment they receive in the legislative process), but not to see their government "of the people, by the people, for the people" corroded by an elite group. I don't think anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence does it say "One Nation, Under Business", but that's exactly what we've got.
And of course, the anticipated response about, "if you don't like America, then leave". That's about as anti-American as it gets. This country was founded on people being able to think differently yet coexist peacefully. I don't leave because I feel that what I'm saying makes obvious sense if one looks beyond one's own lifespan, and is an attitude which shows respect for the heritage of this nation. I am doing my civic duty by looking beyond my personal situation to weigh issues and consider the future. That is the essence of being a good citizen. I believe that criticizing the system if I feel it could be improved makes me a good American, and I have a right to sit in this great country of ours till I'm 90 if I make it, and keep criticizing the system if it's still fu----ed up, and praise it with everything I've got if it lives up to it's promise-as we all can.
And hey, Rob, Bravo!
on Mar 25, 2004
A small point, but perhaps a very important one. really only to do with KharmaGirl's comment...

Maybe if fuel cost Americans $6.84 per gallon, they would all be encouranged to use fuel more efficiently. Perhaps people would buy cars with more efficient engines, move closer to their workplaces. Perhaps public transport could be improved. Perhaps Alaska wouldnt need drilling. Perhaps Iraq would not have needed "liberating". Perhaps the US would still be involved in Kyoto.

Also, A real healthcare plan is one where people, of all backgrounds, can get any medical attention they need, regardles of how much they earn for as long as necessary for free.

Also, if you are a sole propriator, surely this tax thing wont cost jobs... I beleive the original argument, was that this would affect small businesses - and their employees. Im sorry... but which ever way you look at it... Someone who personally earns over $200k per year, is surely considered well off.
on Mar 25, 2004
Sam, you are simply ignoring a lot of information put in front of you. Brad spelled out how small businesses will be affected very clearly. I have first hand experience with that case in point.

As for people moving closer to the workplace, that is simply not viable in a lot of places. I don't know if you ever noticed but the US is a bit larger and more spread out population wise than the UK. We have a hard enough time finding jobs as is. You think expecting people to have to move to their job and penalizing small business owners is going to help the job front? I think not! Higher fuel costs is not going to help public transport get any better either. In my area in MI public transport means buses or taxis. Good luck with having those options at all if fuel is more expensive.

Julian and Sam, I have no problem with people complaining if they have something constructive to add. I have a problem with all of the people who sit around complaining and never putting any action toward their words. I do feel you should put up or shut up. You sit around spewing what things should be like without giving any ideas on how to accomplish any of it. Healthcare is a good example of that. Sure, it would be wonderful if everyone could just get all of the medical coverage they need. Guess what, even those of us who pay through the nose for coverage still have to jump through hoops to get what we need sometimes. At least you will get emergency care in the US no matter who you are or where you came from. Not so everywhere in the world. I went on a group trip in the late 80s to Toronto. A friend in the group knocked a mirror over in the hotel and cut his hand badly. He was told at the hospital that he needed $100 before they would give him any treatment. This teenage boy could have bled to death! Luckily we were all able to pitch in and get him the care he needed. That would never happen with the system we have here.

Julian, you go ahead and keep complaining. There are things I don't like about our government either but I tend to really love my country over all. I can honestly say that there is nowhere in the world I would rather live. It just sounded to me like you were making the UK out to be such a better place to be. Why wouldn't you live there if that was the case? That was my point. I personally would move to a different country if I thought my government was horrible and there was a better alternative. I think neither therefore I am a happy, grateful American.
on Mar 25, 2004
I must admit that I find the American LLC taxation system (as described here) very confusing. Let me throw some figures around to see if I get this.

You own you own shop and decide to set it up as an LLC.

Your shop has a turnover of 600k a year
You buy 350k of products
You invest 50k on a new shop interior
You pay 30k to a sales assistant
You pay yourself 80k as manager

What number do you pay tax on?
250k - the profit on your sales?
220k - the profit after salaries adding your salary back in?
200k - the profit after expenses?
170k - the profit after expenses and salaries?
90k - the business profit?

In the UK you would personally pay income tax on 80k and your company would pay company tax on 90k. As company tax is much lower than high rate income tax the system encourages you to hire a part time assistant at 20k, reduce your wages to 60k, and award yourself tax free shares and dividends.

What happens in the US?

paul.
on Mar 25, 2004
Jill... this is a blogging site. Its ALL about words, not actions. I am not able to get directly involved in American politics, though I am able to sit here at my desk and write to groups such as this to discuss, and hopefully educate myself about things. Obviously, I dont know everything about every subject I write about, but I dont just make things up, or argue points if I dont see vailidity in them. Perhaps you are suggesting that I dont take part in these discussions?

Regardless.... appologies... When I brought up the subject of tax again in my second post, I was mis-understanding something KarmaGirl had written. I assumed that a "Sole Propriator" was the same as something we have here called a "sole trader"... which is basically, a one man band. Since then, I have been doing some reading on the subject of American business, and found that this site helped me to understand a bit more about the concepts of the different businesses...http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/consumered/nf253.htm.

I would have thought though, that someone (or company) in the bracket addressed by this possible tax hike, might prefer to become a LLC.

I run a Ltd (Limited) company here in the UK, which sounds in many ways, similar to a LLC. A company director running a business with a profit of $200,000 wants some kind of limited liability protection in case things go pear shaped, dont they? I know I do.

Just another quick question, and this really is a key point: If a US company (LLC, or S-Corp) has 3 employees, who each earn $33.33k per year, and the company takes $250,000 a year, that leaves the owner of the company with around $150,000 dollars. Does that still leave the company in a position to pay the higher tax, or are wages taken as an expense before the tax is applied? (Lets just assume there are no other expenses for the purpose of this example).
on Mar 25, 2004
Solitair , I would think in MI you have to pay taxes on the 200k. I won't bother to get into asset depreciation that might be involved with the shop "interior". Changing your salary won't help because emloyees are "assets" so you can't write that off in any way. This varies from state to state though. In some states you will have to pay a Single Business Tax on top of the taxes you pay on the 200k.

It is confusing and sucks!h
on Mar 25, 2004
Sam, I think you are catching on now. That poor schmoe who is left with $150,000 is still going to pay taxes on the full $200k because employees are assets. Now you might say, "150k is still plenty of money for anyone". Well, if that person is investing in the company and is taking on the responsibilty of providing well for his employees, $150k doesn't go far.
on Mar 25, 2004
Well... to sound ignorant, I would llike to add that your system seems to be entirely at fault here, rather than Mr. Kerry himself. I would also say that if your country needs to raise taxes (and its defecit would say that it does) then this is still probably the best market to aim the tax at.

Much better *solution* to tax problems however, would be to completely seperate the tax issues. Personal and corporate. That way, you pay for what you take home personally, as a company owner, director, shareholder, or employee. If a company has its own status, then it should pay tax on its profits.

Does that seem a better way to do things or not? Aimed really at business owners....
on Mar 25, 2004
One can easily tell the depth and thourougness of both the European education system and the approach Europeans take to their politics in Mr. Edney's posts. My father, who is now 73, tells me that when he was educated right here in America, the teachers at even the elementary school level covered topics concerning government's responsibility to the people and the abuse of power that would NEVER make it into a classroom today, maybe not even at the college level. This is because those who abuse power are frightened of an educated citizenry that could call them consistently on their bull----. This is why many people, though they may be very bright, are not able to form perceptive political opinions, and why it has become exceedingly easy to deceive the average American. It is not our fault; we are just not exposed to the information. In this country, you really have to dig to get to the bottom of how our political system works, and once you are exposed to the nitty-gritty, you might well turn around in fright.
Mr. Edney, on the other hand, can clearly see where the fault lies, because Europeans are accostomed to thinking for themselves; they are not constantly barraged by disinformation campaigns carried out through the medium of national T.V. news. It makes me hysterical to think that the conservatives carry on about the "liberal newsmedia", when it is clear with more than a passing glance that the overwhelming majority of news organizations are owned by megacorporations-Time, Fox, etc., and whose interests do you think THEY have in mind? Before anyone hits me with any comments in the vein of "you don't like Americans", etc., allow me to say that I think we are some of the most innovative, caring people in the world, I just believe that, largely due to factors beyond our control, we have not yet reached the political maturity of the Europeans.
By the way, 37% of young Americans don't have health insurance. That's a system that works well for ya!
on Mar 25, 2004

Solitair, in your case, you get taxed on the 250k.  Employees are assets, so no tax break there.  Not sure on what all depreciates, but that is a deduction which gives you a partial tax break.

Sam, I think you need to take a trip to the US before you think that people could just move closer to where they work.  I live where I do and commute because it's where I can afford to live.  I can't afford to live near where I work. There are also many places that don't have any public transportation (like where I live) so that isn't an option.  The US is very different than most countries.  One of our developers from England has commented on how Michigan is the same size as England- and we have 49 other states in our country.  I also don't think you realized what caused the tax cut.  It was to stimulate our economy to get us out of the recession- and it is doing that.  Taxing people and business more will throw us right back into the recession again.

on Mar 25, 2004
One can easily tell the depth and thourougness of both the European education system and the approach Europeans take to their politics in Mr. Edney's posts. My father, who is now 73, tells me that when he was educated right here in America, the teachers at even the elementary school level covered topics concerning government's responsibility to the people and the abuse of power that would NEVER make it into a classroom today, maybe not even at the college level. This is because those who abuse power are frightened of an educated citizenry that could call them consistently on their bull----. This is why many people, though they may be very bright, are not able to form perceptive political opinions, and why it has become exceedingly easy to deceive the average American. It is not our fault; we are just not exposed to the information. In this country, you really have to dig to get to the bottom of how our political system works, and once you are exposed to the nitty-gritty, you might well turn around in fright.


You're basing your opinion on America's educational system of today to how it was generations ago?

Mr. Edney, on the other hand, can clearly see where the fault lies, because Europeans are accostomed to thinking for themselves; they are not constantly barraged by disinformation campaigns carried out through the medium of national T.V. news. It makes me hysterical to think that the conservatives carry on about the "liberal newsmedia", when it is clear with more than a passing glance that the overwhelming majority of news organizations are owned by megacorporations-Time, Fox, etc., and whose interests do you think THEY have in mind? Before anyone hits me with any comments in the vein of "you don't like Americans", etc., allow me to say that I think we are some of the most innovative, caring people in the world, I just believe that, largely due to factors beyond our control, we have not yet reached the political maturity of the Europeans.


What's funny is that these private corporations are supposedly working for the government, but the public organizations funded by the governments in Europe are supposedly not working for the government. Weird. As for political maturity, we might not be as socialistic as Europe, but we don't find that to be mature. I guess we should just go against the will of the people and demand that we become a socialistic state to be mature.

By the way, 37% of young Americans don't have health insurance. That's a system that works well for ya!


How many millions of young Americans are dying?
on Mar 25, 2004

By the way, 37% of young Americans don't have health insurance. That's a system that works well for ya!

where did you come up with that figure?  The 2003 census says that 84.8% of people have Health insurance and 88.4% of children have health insurance.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but 88.4% and 37% add up to a bit more than 100%

on Mar 25, 2004
The 37% figure was reported on CNN tonight.
Super, I wasn't basing my opinion of today's education system at all on that generations ago. I am a product of the modern system, and I was simply saying that through discussions with my Father, I have learned that we are not exposed to the same level of critical thinking and status-quo questioning as they were. I'm sure there are areas where our modern system is better than that of the past, but you have to remember that since the focus of our educational system has switched from education to training(even, often, at the higher levels) we do tend to miss out on some of the higher-thinking stuff that our parents or grandparents got.
You also misread what I was getting at with the newsmedia thing. It's not that the corporations are working for the government, it's that the right wing is in the pockets of the megacorporations, and therefore they will tend to bias the coverage towards their message, as carried in the ever-capable hands of the Republican party. And I think the Europeans would sternly disagree with you when you call them socialist. They are simply trying to find the best way to take care of their people, and Iseriously doubt even that engaging in what some would call socialized medicine would turn the rest of a country's policies towards socialism. It hasn't happened in Canada, and it hasn't happened in Europe. It's just a sensible thing to do. And while I'm on the topic, I thought I might remind all my Republican friends that the system of government which disolved with the Soviet Union was not in the remotest sense pure socialism, but rather an amalgam of Facism and watered down socialist theory. We did not "defeat socialism" when the U.S.S.R. was toppled, we defeated a dinosaur of a political system which had become rusted with corruption and inneficiency, and never lived up to ANY of the ideals of socialist philosophers. Russia did not represent true socialism(which, by the way, is a political philosophy, not a curse word) with any real accuracy, just as our present capitalist hierarchy does not represent true Democracy with any real accuracy.
On your last point, I sincerely hope that I am the one misreading YOU this time. Do you mean to suggest that, in our modern era, we judge the quality of a healthcare system by HOW MANY PEOPLE DO OR DON'T DIE?!?
I thought the thrust of modern medicine was towards wellness and sophisticated surgical and pharmaceutical technique, not just hoping bodies don't start piling up! Again, pardon me if I misinterpreted you.
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last