say brad, what about getting some people working from home, with video chat. This might allow you to expand further without need to build more taxable buildings.

This is only because you're incredibly ignorant on the subject.

The middle class in the US pay very little of the income taxes in this country.  I am, frankly, surprised that you weren't aware of this given how often it has been discussed here and elsewhere.

The top few percent of the income earners pay the vast majority of taxes in this country.

Nearly half the population of the United States pays no net federal income taxes.

You're just falling into the lame loser-think claptrap that tries to rationalize their failures in life by blaming everyone but themselves.

It's a rather sudden change for you. I suppose that your views have changed now that you're taking from the government far more than you pay in and your husband works for the government directly. So now you find the need to rationalize the way you live.

I accept paying taxes. I accept paying lots of taxes. I believe the wealthiest Americans should pay most of the taxes because they have the most disposable income.  

But I also think all Americans should have to pay some net federal taxes so that there is some sort of direct connection between their beliefs and the consequences of their beliefs. Because no matter how clearly people like me who create the actual jobs for the middle class put it, most people are quite obviously too stupid to recognize the connection between them losing jobs and opportunity and business owners paying high taxes.

Except "the rich" just pass on those taxes to the middle class because "the rich" have the power to do it.

Hence, you should be arguing for no taxes on anyone.

Guess what, LW: No matter what the taxes are, I keep the Porsche and the big house and my life style.  I just don't hire as many workers, invest in as much new business and, at worst, lay off existing workers that either don't generate a net profit from their labor or don't produce enough a profit for short term needs.

That's the real world, LW.  So if you were a pragmatist, you would favor lower taxes for everyone.

We already do now.  Much of our software, games, skins have components developed and created in places like England, Brazil, Italy, Australia, and various parts of the United States and Canada.

But you can only do so much of that.

Why are you keeping those workers at the moment? Charity?

they could potentially be making a profit at the current tax point.

Or they could be generating a small loss with hope that whatever they are working on generates a large profit in the future.

See this is what I am getting at and your seeing it. THis is why I appose any kind of tax hike ATM for anyone. Rich poor middle class. They have to learn some how some why and your giving in in a way. Your thinking... well, it wont happen so we should just bend over and take it. I for one rufuse to do that as so should you. I am sure that the gov can cut spending easy and keep this country running good if not better than it is now.

But that investment will often count as an expense which will be tax deductable (albeit not immediately depending on the type of investment - e.g hiring a staff and spending a ton of money getting them up to speed will likely be deductable immediately, while buying a group of computers to improve the productivity of your workers will either have a proportion allowed for tax purposes over the years, or possibly require you to wait until disposal before getting the tax reduction - I'd have thought the former, but haven't looked into it in any great detail for the US), meaning investment will reduce the tax payable.

Presumably if you were to make a (nominal) loss on selling the property in the future you'd get tax relief on that though; also leasing (or sale+leaseback) could be used. Also the person wasn't actually saying that profit is the same as what's left after investing in their business, but was the same as dollars after the cost of doing business is deducted - building a new office to expand your business wouldn't be a cost of business, since you would be spending the money to obtain an asset (just as buying $100k of stock and selling 1% of that for $2k in the year means you've made an accounting profit of $1k as opposed to a loss of $98k, ignoring stock depreciation issues etc.). Of course some things that might be viewed as costs of business might not be for tax purposes, but those tend to have smaller impacts on the overall picture.

I'm still failing to see how firing employees would keep your profit the same given a tax rise though. Lets say you cut plans to build an extension on the current building (or move to bigger premesis), and once doing that hiring more employees to fill the new place; that would decrease future jobs, but not lead to current firings. Meanwhile if you were to fire current employees, that would only keep your profit at the pre-tax-rise levels if those employees were loss making, which, in investment purposes, I could only really see occuring if the employees in question were being given training to become proficient at their relevant task (and weren't proficient at the time, resulting in them costing more than they produced in the short term). The only other reason I can think of (although I may have missed some) for keeping loss making employees would be charity (unless it was felt that the morale effects of firing those employees would cause productivity among other workers to fall, or some related reason), hence why I mentioned it.

Edit: ignore the last part, for some reason I thought you'd said you'd cut your workforce to maintain your salary, as opposed to cutting back your investments to maintain your salary (just realised my mistake when going back to the original post to refresh my memory, sorry for not realising sooner!) .

My personal attacks are just a bit more direct than yours (with your not-so-subtle references to me in your various comments and blogs) but I don't blame you for that. But don't cry me a river about personal attacks, you are the queen of skirting the edge.

Now, getting back:

Let's be real, the trivial amounts in taxes you paid between 15 and 43 before you went on SS disability will soon, if they have not already been, totally made up by the money you've gotten back.  Complaining that you are taxed on your welfare is patently offensive.

I happen to support social security disability as a concept (though it is remarkably easy to get on SS disability -- I have no doubt you are a legitimate case but many are not).  

But sitting back and saying how the middle class is so squeezed is patently offensive and ignorant. The middle class pay trivial amounts in taxes compared to what they get back.  

And someone who is currently getting more back than they're likely paying in advocating that I should pay more could, at the very least, read what is written instead of projecting your screwy world view onto it.

You read what I write as "whining" about taxes as if taxes somehow affect my life personally. 

I am "whining" about taxes in the same sense that one might "whine" about the government banning DDT due to its unintended consequences in Africa

Glad you got the idea at the end. But just to spell it out:

Employees don't lay golden eggs that are collected in real-time. They work on things that one hopes will produce a figurative golden egg in the mid-term or long-term.

Let's use video games as an example:

If I hire the 12 to 16 people I'd like to hire this next year to create a game team, the game they produce won't materialize for 30 to 36 months from the time we start.

In effect, to a business owner, hiring employees is a lot like when a middle class person buys a 36 month CD (except with greater risk / greater reward).

If the capital to do that investment is taken by the government, then the business owner simply doesn't hire those employees / the middle class person doesn't get that CD because they need the remaining money for nearer term things.

That's why anytime I see someone accusing "the rich" of "whining" about taxes or whatever, I know that we're dealing with a dumb person because they don't see that the taxes don't affect the rich in the same way as they affect the middle class.

The best solution therefore is to consciously elect and support federal politicans who lower taxes while supporting local politicans with specific agendas you agree with (like fixing roads).

Better reread his response.  Money re-invested in the business is taxed.  As it is profits that are re-invested.

And I would not call you obtuse.

I still don't understand how higher taxes on corporation is going to prevent you to hire people, Draginol.

Salaries are paid by gross profits. Not by post-taxes money. You still have as much money to hire peoples after a tax raise than before. the sole problem is that less money comes to YOU in the end, but the business is still working mostly unnaffected (except for the sales, since consumers might have less money to spend, but that's deeper economics than what you are saying about firing people 'cause your taxes are higher)

"If I hire the 12 to 16 people I'd like to hire this next year to create a game team, the game they produce won't materialize for 30 to 36 months from the time we start."

If there is less money to re-invest in the business, the business does not grow as much, which means fewer people hired.  The cost of a person is an expense.  The investment is income, and is not.

one explanation (may not be the case in this situation) is that prior to the tax increase undertaking an investment in the company may have yielded a high enough post-tax return to justify it against Brad's alternative of 'consuming' it, but with a tax increase it may no longer look as attractive. That is, those employees would be expected to make a profit for the firm (otherwise why hire them?). The tax rise won't change this, but it will change the amount of (post tax) profit they now make. E.g. if you hired a worker for $50k, and they made you $100k, with a 20% tax you'd pay $10k, with a 40% tax you'd pay $20k. So you don't get quite as much money at the end of it, and may decide that you'd rather just spend the money now.

But if the investment is in people, it will (usually) count as an expense, and hence you won't pay taxes on it.

Lets say you (expect to) have profits before tax of $100k, and a tax of 20%, meaning post-tax you have $80k. If you wanted to, you could invest $100k into your business to hire extra workers (and hire out a building+equipment for them to use if you don't have enough space atm) to work on a project not materialising for say 3 years, meaning now you have profits before tax of $0, and post tax have $0. With a tax rate of 40% you still have the same post-tax profit if you undertake that investment. In fact you could raise taxes to 99% and you could still invest $100k into your business by hiring some workers to work on a long term project. You won't make as much money from those workers at the end of the 3 years due to the tax change, but you can still invest the same amount in them.