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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Mar 29, 2004

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.

on Mar 29, 2004
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.
on Mar 29, 2004
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.
on Mar 29, 2004

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....)

 

 

on Mar 29, 2004
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.
on Mar 29, 2004

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.

on Mar 30, 2004
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.
on Mar 30, 2004

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.

on Apr 02, 2004
$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.
on Apr 02, 2004

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

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

on Apr 02, 2004
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.
on Apr 05, 2004
Ah,
cost of living differences. explains the difference in costs.

paul.
on Apr 05, 2004

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.

on Apr 05, 2004
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.
on Apr 05, 2004
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.
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6