The truth about jobs that no one wants to tell

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You will have to run a bussiness and find out. And they are not tax deuctions, they are "expenses". Get a clue. Talk to your tax adviser.

That's not what I asked. Two people are pocketing close to $300k. So why is the small business owner allowed to make all of these "expense claims", including their vehicle, whereas the employee is not. How is that fair? Both of these individuals should pay the same tax.

Because it is a business related expense, part of the cost of doing business.

Plus, you employer doesn't pay half of your payroll tax. You get to pay the "self-employment tax", are responsible for your own healthcare, including work related injuries, and have to document your entire life, to separate bussinesss expenses from personal expenses.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Because it is a business related expense, part of the cost of doing business.

So why should they be treated any differently over an employee?

It still does not answer why someone taking home $300k as an employee must pay the full tax rate. While another individual who is a small business owner taking home the same amount, is able to offset the tax with a range of deductions. How do I get to work without a car? Yet I cannot claim it or my fuel. Whereas, the small business owners I know, all claim their personal vehicles.

Not true. You can only expense the bussiness portion, not even the commuter portion of your vehicle expenses.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Because it is a business related expense, part of the cost of doing business.

So why should they be treated any differently over an employee?

It still does not answer why someone taking home $300k as an employee must pay the full tax rate. While another individual who is a small business owner taking home the same amount, is able to offset the tax with a range of deductions. How do I get to work without a car? Yet I cannot claim it or my fuel. Whereas, the small business owners I know, all claim their personal vehicles.

Vehicles claimed are supposed to be for business use, but many probably use them for personal use too. I know many that abuse the vehicle deductions. An employee isn't absorbing a cost of doing business as an owner does. And small business owners don't have it nearly as good as large corportations.

[ScottThuy 140]

Good point.. If I put my name on my boat and claimed it as an advertising/marketing expense it would likely not fly... but an exec can do it quite easily with the company name. I saw a Hooters luxury coach the other day.. Dont think I could write off a bus either...

Being self employed I am able to write off far more than if I was an employee.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Good point.. If I put my name on my boat and claimed it as an advertising/marketing expense it would likely not fly... but an exec can do it quite easily with the company name. I saw a Hooters luxury coach the other day.. Dont think I could write off a bus either...

Being self employed I am able to write off far more than if I was an employee.

The big corporations get to write off a lot more than someone who is self employed or owns a small business. The outrage should be over the corporations with their massive tax breaks while having large parts of their business based overseas and hiring low wage workers in India, China, etc, yet they get the benefit right here at home. At least the majority of small business owners are putting locals to work and the money stays in the US economy.

[Heracles 417]

Good point.. If I put my name on my boat and claimed it as an advertising/marketing expense it would likely not fly... but an exec can do it quite easily with the company name. I saw a Hooters luxury coach the other day.. Dont think I could write off a bus either...

Being self employed I am able to write off far more than if I was an employee.

The big corporations get to write off a lot more than someone who is self employed or owns a small business. The outrage should be over the corporations with their massive tax breaks while having large parts of their business based overseas and hiring low wage workers in India, China, etc, yet they get the benefit right here at home. At least the majority of small business owners are putting locals to work and the money stays in the US economy.

Corporations are a company, not an individual. A small business owner is directly benefiting from it. Before you hate on big business, who do you think the majority of illegal aliens are working for? Certainly not big business. So don't give me the they're helping the economy, when in reality many are simply helping themselves and screwing other Americans. Not all, but certainly many in various industries.

While small businesses should be able to claim their expenses, it does not explain why the owner also gets to pay less tax on the money they actually get to keep and use for themselves. I wonder if small business owners pay tax on the revenue they receive, if they sell their business. As Steven pointed out in another thread, these guys can pump hundreds of thousands into retirement account and totally avoid paying taxes.

Basically, unless I invest in a small business myself, I am left pay over $50k in federal tax.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You work for a corporation, hence your defense. I own my own business. And you don't get to keep the money and use it for yourself tax free if you obey the laws. I don't have a call center or tech support in India.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You work for a corporation, hence your defense. I own my own business. And you don't get to keep the money and use it for yourself tax free if you obey the laws. I don't have a call center or tech support in India.

I think, at times, I don't even make minimum wage. So much for Booyah's theories.

[Heracles 417]

You work for a corporation, hence your defense. I own my own business. And you don't get to keep the money and use it for yourself tax free if you obey the laws. I don't have a call center or tech support in India.

You just hire illegal aliens. Apparently that really helps Americans.

[mRx 16]

If the feds don't spend money to "put people back to work", the economy won't recover and politics will still get uglier

Just fixed that.

Money needs to be spent. I'm not questioning that part.

It's the part that needs to be questioned though.

Capital needs to be restructured to meet the current demands of consumers. This can only occur if the government curtails spending, cuts taxes, and encourages investment.

Worked in 1921, and it would work today.

The boom through a bust theory failed in Japan, and it failed in the US once before. We shouldn't be following failed doctrines.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

how many "bridges to nowhere" and "airports to nowhere" do we need?

What bridges and airports are you referring to?

you've not heard of the bridge to nowhere?

I have. And I wonder what that would have to do with stimulus money? That was long before then.

As for the airports, there's an odd federal program out there - I think it's called "The Essential Air Service program" - that needs to be scrapped. Problem is that Congress - no matter what the majorities - isn't scrapping it. Seems that the folks in rural fly-over country love their fancy little rural airports with little to no actual passengers.

while before the stimulus bill, it's a fine example of government spending. the murtha airport is an excellent example of the stimulus fiasco.

and note it's in penn, hardly what many would consider "flyover country"

[Pooky 3,930]

If the feds don't spend money to "put people back to work", the economy won't recover and politics will still get uglier

Just fixed that.

Money needs to be spent. I'm not questioning that part.

It's the part that needs to be questioned though.

Capital needs to be restructured to meet the current demands of consumers. This can only occur if the government curtails spending, cuts taxes, and encourages investment.

Worked in 1921, and it would work today.

The boom through a bust theory failed in Japan, and it failed in the US once before. We shouldn't be following failed doctrines.

And there we go. You answered your own question. It's money, it's needed and someone will spend it as investment. Job done.

[Jamaican JNR 2]

If the feds don't spend money to put people back to work, the economy won't recover and politics will get uglier

By Robert Reich

Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part-time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.

In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).

Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a midterm election. Be prepared for worse.

So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.

And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.

Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: the government.

Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.

Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.

When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grandkids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.

My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.

You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.

People who now obsess about government debt have it backward. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then -- after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.

But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/...opinion/feature

Good bit of news

[Heracles 417]

It's the part that needs to be questioned though.

Capital needs to be restructured to meet the current demands of consumers. This can only occur if the government curtails spending, cuts taxes, and encourages investment.

Worked in 1921, and it would work today.

The boom through a bust theory failed in Japan, and it failed in the US once before. We shouldn't be following failed doctrines.

I hope you noticed the article I posted a few days ago which, um, discussed Melbourne's property price increasing by 6% last month.

Government intervention seems to be doing well for Aus and China in this economy. Unfortunately, rather than analyzing this, you allow your libertarian bias to focus on money spent poorly. Then conveniently turn around and claim government intervention as a whole does not work. What about people who purchased shares in companies and their investments failed? Based on the Matt logic, then no one should ever invest again.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You work for a corporation, hence your defense. I own my own business. And you don't get to keep the money and use it for yourself tax free if you obey the laws. I don't have a call center or tech support in India.

You just hire illegal aliens. Apparently that really helps Americans.

Not true. Just because you don't have what it takes to own and manage your own business doesn't make it right to make your usual predjudiced, stereotyped assumptions. All of your beloved huge corporations were small businesses somewhere down the line. And you're being a hypocrite once again, defending big business but belittleing anyone who shops at WalMart. And you hate monopolies too. Why, isn't that even better for a clock puncher such as yourself?