Something has been pissing me off about these debates. It's that sometimes there
are arguments that at least to me, the non-political non-accountant non-lawyer,
are not being made.

For example, Bush says that Kerry's tax increases for the rich will hit around 
900,000 people who own small businesses that are subchapter S corporations 
with higher taxes, therefor making them less inclined to create jobs.

Kerry's argument back is that many of these subchapter S corps are people who
have tiny shares in companies, and the actual number is more like 200-300k.

OK that's valid, but they are missing the BIG FUCKING POINT!

My understanding of subchapter S corporations is that only PROFIT or LOSS can be
passed through to the shareholders' tax returns. So really, in order for you,
as a subchapter S shareholder, to be hit by a tax increase for the rich (I 
believe they like to stay starting at 200k) is if your business PROFITS more
than 200k in a given year. Not grosses, but profits. So the argument that Bush
is making, basically becomes:

   Small businesses that are very successful and making their owners over
   200k a year will be hit with higher taxes, therefor those business owners
   will not be as inclined to hire more people, etc.
 
Which just doesn't make sense, at least to me, the small business owner. If
you're making over 200k a year, paying an additional 10% in taxes, really,
isn't that big of a deal. 

Nevermind the arguments that Bush makes, that "taxing the rich won't work
because they have lawyers and accountants and can get out of paying taxes".

HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT (or something very close to that).

AND NOBODY NOTICES!


don't get me started on missle defense

October 9, 2004
I wrote up a slightly clearer version of my earlier rant, and sent it to 
the Kerry campaign (though I'm sure it'll never get read). Here is it:

---begin quote

This is regarding the debate of whether raising taxes for individuals making 
over $200,000 a year is bad for small businesses. 

The problem with the Kerry campaign's position on the subject is that they 
only dispute the number of small businesses who would be affected. 

The reality of the way subchapter S corporations works is that only PROFITS or 
LOSSES for a corporation can be passed to the shareholders, so only businesses 
who are PROFITING over $200,000 a year would have increased tax.

This is an important distinction,  because it undermines the point of what 
Bush likes to say, that (paraphrasing) "businesses will not be able to create 
or maintain jobs if you increase the taxes on them".  

This is nonsense, because paying employees would happen pre-tax, as an expense.

Please please please use this perspective at the next debate. Please. 
For all of us. Thank you,

Justin

P.S. A one line summary is: "Taxing corporate profits isn't taxing employment."

---end quote.