Posted on 10/18/2008 9:22:49 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[snip]
Does McCain think the government is better than the free market at choosing which kinds of companies are likely to flower? (Obama probably does think so, but he certainly would not want to admit as much at this point.) There used to be a term for this: industrial policy. It was generally decided that it is not a good idea. Now industrial policy is back with a vengeance in the banking industry, but that is considered to be a matter of necessity. Special tax breaks for small businesses are not a necessity.
Actually, Obama is the guiltier party here. McCain talks a lot (and a lot of nonsense) about small business, but that's in support of policies, such as tax cuts for the rich, which are terrible ideas in their own terms, but at least they don't single out small business for special treatment. Obama, by contrast, proposes exempting the sale of small businesses from the capital gains tax, allowing small businesses to avoid the burdens his health care plan would place on big businesses, and so on.
Instead, Obama ought to concentrate on finding the other 50 percent of small business income taxes—the part McCain has revealed that small businesses aren't paying.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Yeah, we see where this is going!
This kind of elitist thinking makes me want to barf - it would be so easy to incorporate and WRITE EVERYTHING OFF - while claiming a “modest” income.
I think first thing I will do Monday morning is incorporate and use the loopholes to our advantage. Funny thing is, I don’t think Obama is betting on “us small business owners” knowing how to get around these taxes and loopholes. Put everything into the corporation write it all off. I could be driving a brand new Escalade instead of my 11 yr old car......hmmmmmm......the house? Into the corporation or trust.....we’ll just “rent” at the exact same amount of PTIE. Income? Hell, just look at the books. We could qualify for foodstamps and health care. And free college.
There ARE ways around it - we’re just not taking advantage of it.
Why modest? Go for the earned income tax credit. :)
Kinsley misses the mark. He’s right, every employee can potentially bring in more income. But every employee is also a potential liability to a small business owner in that he has to manage more people (more paperwork and red tape, mor time invested to ensure they ARE making money for the business). Which means less available time to actually do work or go out and solicit new business. It’s a Catch 22.
So while it might be nice to be in the next higher tax bracket, the small business owner might wake up and realize he is working harder but not really making that much more in compensation. Meanwhile his taxes (and other expenses like paperwork for each employee and health insurance costs keep rising).
Suddenly, he decides “you know what? I don’t want to work this hard and have no time with my family just so I can make a few extra thousand dollars for myself and for Uncle Sam.
Not only am I paying my own taxes, I’m taking all the risks that create jobs so more people can pay taxes. It’s not always a good return on time/energy investment.
So the small business person downsizes, lay employees off and spends a little more time with family or goes fishing more often... probably lives a few years longer.
There is a point of diminishing return. And piling on extra taxes, while probably not the dealbreaker, certainly helps one come to that realization.
Go for the earned income tax credit. :)
Exactly. And I’ll be waitin’ on the additional Obama tax credits to go with it. Hell, I might even sign my kids up for free healthcare and “declare” I am separated to get all the other goodies.
Yep...and if you can’t use it all up by writing off your personal things, then you can always create a Panamanian company that licenses your ‘intellectual property’ back to your own company just to make sure that there isn’t one damn penny of actual business profit.
I started looking into all these tings when Fred Thompson dropped out. I figured the knowledge might come in handy.
Classic girly-man metrosexual. Geez, why bother with his tripe?
No one paid the least bit of attention to the socialist experiment that just failed in Hawaii.
Hawaii offered free health care to uninsured children. What happened? People who had been PAYING for private insurance for their children STOPPED PAYING so their kids became eligible for “free” state health insurance.
The rate of enrollment of previously privately insured children was so great that Hawaii stopped the program after only a few months! (This just happened last week or so.)
The Rats never account for the fact that human nature leads people to behave strategically. If you can get something for free, most probably will. If you work for basically nothing, most probably won’t.
There’s some info at www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151/html...if the past is prelude, the site provides a history...if you don’t study it, someone will whap you over the head with it and all that...
taxes under Clinton in 1999, single making 30K—tax $8,400...taxes under Bush in 2008, single making 30K—tax $4,500...cue the soundtrack from the movie The Sting...you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened...and if you asked Joe Blow on the street, or listened to the media, President Clinton was the greatest thing since the Hula-hoop and the Democratic Party really looks after the little guy while Bush and his oil buddies are really putting the screws to him...or sumpin
the dogs are barking in the kennel, but the kennel is situated where no one lives...the noise level...don’t ya know.
Michael Kinsley is a moron.
Kinsley misses the mark. He’s right, every employee can potentially bring in more income. But every employee is also a potential liability to a small business owner in that he has to manage more people (more paperwork and red tape, mor time invested to ensure they ARE making money for the business). Which means less available time to actually do work or go out and solicit new business. It’s a Catch 22.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can well attest to this, when I started my own small business I was advised by more experienced people not to get caught in the trap of having three or four employees. I was told to either do everything myself (with maybe one part time office worker) or go big. In between, I was told, lay the road to working long hours with little to show for it. I, of course, disregarded all that advice and wound up with three employees, at which point I started downsizing until I wound up going back to a home office and doing it all myself with my wife as bookkeeper and secretary. Some businesses are different but I was in a very technically demanding one and training people to do what I did was just not vey practical.
Exactly. There is a ‘dead zone’ of number of employees that is lethal for a small busineses. All you end up doing is babysitting and running yourself into the ground .... and not making enough extra money to make it worthwhile
>>>So the small business person downsizes, lay employees off and spends a little more time with family or goes fishing more often... probably lives a few years longer.<<<
Who is John Galt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.