Here Comes the Tax Increase

[Cats Cats Cats]

If they make $1,000,000 or $950,000 they will keep the employees (If they are smart) if they return more money than they are costing.  I really don't understand this concept that companies hire or keep people just because they like having people to pay.

[nathanm]

Understood and understood.  But I keep hearing the term "Class Warfare".  By expressing anger, envy, or dismay at someone based on their income IS class warfare.

Correct, the proposed tax increase on the top earners will not affect wealthy people too much.  You are exactly right about that. 

Businesses that operate under S-Corp or LLC will suffer the most.  If you work for a small business that makes $1,000,000 a year and employs 40 or 50 people, you will lose about $50,000 dollars out of your bottom line.  Now of course you will try to recoup that through deductions, and you can reduce your exposure that way, but now there's talk of reducing the number of deductions too. 

So businesses that rely on a lean income model will have some hard choices to make when it comes to which middle-income employee to let go or which two low income administrative positions to eliminate.

Eh, a single low income admin position costs at least $50k yearly unless you offer zero benefits.

And said LLC can choose to be taxed as a C corp if they prefer. Of course, then the principal(s) will get double taxed on distributions, but they can make the choice to invest the money in expansion or to keep it in the business as reserves and just take a fair market salary, which is an expense, and thus not taxable to the LLC.

[guido911]

Doctors are properly paid.

Yes they are.

[nathanm]

Yes they are.

Sort of. The market is distorted by the artificially low number of med school admissions. A person can find an inexpensive attorney these days, thanks to the bar not restricting admissions anymore. Perhaps the medical profession could take a cue from the lawyers.

Also complicating things are the ridiculous medical malpractice premiums that are far out of proportion to what is actuarially necessary.

[guido911]

An extra $20,000 in taxes?

You are the class warrior here. This country has given you much, the ability to earn a great living. But you just don't want to give back. Let's look at these numbers if you are going to pay another $20,000 in taxes due to Obama.

The top tax rate is going to "increase" from 35% to 39.6%, if your taxes are going up $20k from a 4.6% increase that pegs your taxable income at about $435k a year with real income a probably a lot higher than that. Your monthly take home after federal taxes at 35% is 23,550.72. That will sadly go down to $21,884.06. A month.

Boo friggin' hoo.

not to be rude, but you are a lawyer, which means you don't actually produce anything and you add almost nothing of value to society through your work. And despite you large income you employ almost no one. Your income comes from the complexity and inertia of our legal system and has nearly nothing to with capitalism. Your income is leached off the work and income of entities and people that do actually produce things of value but that have found themselves involved in the quagmire that is our legal system.

If we were to fix the legal system, you certainly wouldn't make enough money to be in the top 1/2 of 1% of wage earners (which is where people that make over half a million a year are). There is no sensible reason for a lawyer to make that kind of money. Income potential like that is what is what has destroyed our legal system.

And if you really make that much money, what in the hell are you doing spending so much time here when you could be getting more billable hours? Or do you bill clients for your TulsaNow posts?

I have zero sympathy over your rediscovered tax burden.

Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.

[nathanm]

Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.

Wow, way to read what you want to read rather than the words on the page.

[guido911]

Wow, way to read what you want to read rather than the words on the page.

I have written often about my wife's military service (six years) and my military service (11 years) we gave to  this country, that when someone busts out with the "look what your country has given you" crap I just pass over it. The funny thing about it is that the people who run with that line have done little or nothing to protect/preserve this country. I call those folks "sex trophy citizens."

As for the subsance, it's not just the tax increase that will impact my family. It's the loss of certain deductions that will hurt as well. As for those figures, he has no idea what he is talking about. I KNOW what we bring in each month after taxes and those numbers are nowhere close. That's another reason why I did not respond.

His rant was based upon all sorts of assumptions (one of them that I believe is bigoted) making it nothing but pure, unadulterated BS. So, why should I bother giving it the attention it needs.

[nathanm]

I have written often about my wife's military service (six years) and my military service (11 years) we gave to  this country, that when someone busts out with the "look what your country has given you" crap I just pass over it. The funny thing about it is that the people who run with that line have done little or nothing to protect/preserve this country. I call those folks "sex trophy citizens."

Just because you write about her doesn't mean we remember that.

Regardless, his point isn't changed by the distribution of income between the two of you.

That said, his math is vaguely correct, although the tax code makes it more difficult than that. (20,000 over 4.6% is indeed 430,000ish)

And last I checked, military service doesn't exempt you from future taxes. You benefit the same from the programs funded by our taxes as everybody else. Not that I don't appreciate it, I'm just saying. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

Overall, we have to pay for things somehow.  I believe in a balanced budget and cutting tax after we reduce spending.  Not before we reduce spending.  Cut the budget by 80 billion, cut 80 billion in taxes.  Unfortunately sometime republicans in the whitehouse, house and senate decided that didn't matter.

[swake]

Nice anti-lawyer rant, except, um, whoever said I was the one bringing in the most money for our family? I guess you don't think a woman can become a professional and earn more than a man. But hey, nice to know gender bigotry is alive and well, at least as far as you are concerned. Exposed.

Um, let's start with I had no idea you were married.

Second, I am not anti-lawyer, my brother is a lawyer. Nor anti-doctor or anti-CEO. I am anti the imbalance that exists with regards to incomes in this country. When the average neurologist makes quadruple what the president makes or a ball player makes 50 times the president's salary or a CEO makes 200 times we have a problem and things are out of whack.

[guido911]

Um, let's start with I had no idea you were married.

Second, I am not anti-lawyer, my brother is a lawyer. Nor anti-doctor or anti-CEO. I am anti the imbalance that exists with regards to incomes in this country. When the average neurologist makes quadruple what the president makes or a ball player makes 50 times the president's salary or a CEO makes 200 times we have a problem and things are out of whack.

Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication?  I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.

Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far less.  We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?

[swake]

Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication?  I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.

Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far less.  We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?

I SERIOUSLY doubt that you are going to go part time because of a 4.6% increase in income taxes.

[USRufnex]

new money.  having a hissy fit over going back to the Clinton tax code.... most wealthy people I^ve met over the years had a certain humility about their success... go figure... favorite bumper sticker these days.... Democrats think the glass is half full, Republicans think the glass is theirs...

[nathanm]

I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?

If the top tax rate was still somewhere around 90%, I'd understand. Why work that much when you only get to keep 10%? But even at 40%, there's still plenty of incentive to increase your income.

That said, we as a society place far too much emphasis on work and not enough on leisure. It's one reason why we're largely a nation of obese diabetic heart attack survivors. If a tax increase gets people to spend a few more hours a week reading a book or spending time with their kids or whatever, that's a good thing in my book. It's not going to happen, though.

Edited to add: It is interesting to note that as time has gone on, while the top marginal rate has decreased, the amount you have to make to be taxed at that rate has also decreased (generally speaking). Rather precipitously, actually. In 1942, when the top marginal rate was raised from 81% to 88%, only earnings over $200,000 a year were taxed at that rate. That's the equivalent of over 2.2 million 2003 dollars. At the time of the Bush tax cuts, the top marginal rate was in effect for people who made over about 27,000 1942 dollars.

[rwarn17588]

Fair enough. Chalk this dust up to miscommunication?  I do agree with you that salaries are "out of whack", although the market presently dictates why ball players and CEO are paid so damned much.

Still, I do believe it was unfair of you to "boo hoo" me on the $20K increase in taxes. There was a time not too long ago (1996) when I was earning $20,000 as a full time, low level hospital supervisor, I was a full time college student, and wrapping up my military service in the guard. My better half was on the same schedule, except she was earning far less.  We worked hard to get educated (7 years of post high school for me, and a pant load more for my wife) and our reward? We get hammered in taxes so those that do not work hard/strive can receive their damned entitlements as well as lectures about what this country has done for us and that we somehow owe this country something even more. I'll be honest, I have been seriously thinking about decreasing my income by working part-time. Seriously, what's the point in continuing to work hard if the result is providing for those that don't?

I find it ironic that someone who used to be in the military and is estimated to make well above six figures is prone to so much victimhood.