Started By
Message
locked post

Breakdown of Possible Business Tax

Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:38 am
Posted by Afreaux
Conway Bayou
Member since Aug 2007
47019 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:38 am
I keep reading about how businesses will have to fire people or not expand to keep themselves under 250k profit under a potential future business tax plan. So can someone please break this down?

Company X has a profit of 280k a year. Company X lays off one of their employees that they pay 30k annually to, that includes the $150/month BlueSaver plan through Blue Cross of Louisiana.

That employee obviously generates more than 30k a year in revenue for the company, subsequently the layoff puts Company X under the 250k profit mark.

So how did Company X financially benefit from laying off said employee? And what is Company X's incentive to not expand?
Posted by SnowMan77
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Oct 2008
2242 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:42 am to
They wouldn't lay off the employee. they will continue to conduct business as usual while they are making solid profits.

It's just a boogeyman that the republicans create to serve the corporate interests. It should be obvious..
Posted by simonizer
no
Member since Oct 2008
1696 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:54 am to
quote:

I keep reading about how businesses will have to fire people or not expand to keep themselves under 250k profit under a potential future business tax plan. So can someone please break this down?

Company X has a profit of 280k a year. Company X lays off one of their employees that they pay 30k annually to, that includes the $150/month BlueSaver plan through Blue Cross of Louisiana.

That employee obviously generates more than 30k a year in revenue for the company, subsequently the layoff puts Company X under the 250k profit mark.

So how did Company X financially benefit from laying off said employee? And what is Company X's incentive to not expand?



company x will keep this person employed as long as it is feasible to do so. company x will raise its prices to try and make it feasibly possible to meet its projected earnings.

taxes will have no effect on the hiring or firing of employees so long as the projected earnings can be met .

if the projected earnings can not be met the usual first casualties are employeees.
Posted by SnowMan77
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Oct 2008
2242 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:59 am to
quote:

if the projected earnings can not be met the usual first casualties are employeees.


This is actually not as true these days. Most companies are trying to make as much money as possible already so if there's an employee that isn't making profits for them then they would be cut regardless. There's some special conditions to where the employee would generate a net return of 10% under one tax plan and 9% under the other and maybe the required return on investment is 10% so that employee is cut, but employees along these margins are not common, they are exceptions. In these events, the smaller business should be able to take up the slack, with it's lower tax margins.. but it's all theoretical. In theory socialism sucks, in practice it's worked well in some cases, but we're not talking about a big change in tax policy, unless FICA changes.
This post was edited on 10/18/08 at 2:01 am
Posted by kfizzle85
Member since Dec 2005
22022 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:06 am to
I feel like there's something to be commented on, but I can't quite figure it out...
Posted by simonizer
no
Member since Oct 2008
1696 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:08 am to
let me tell you how it works in reality. usually no one really earns what they are worth. if that criteria is tightened even one bit, their will be plenty of people who will lose their jobs either justifiably or unjustifiably.


Posted by SnowMan77
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Oct 2008
2242 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:12 am to
and to partially answer Afreaux's question.

No company is trying to be in a lower bracket. Your profits up to $250k are taxed the same. The extra $30k in profits would be taxed at 39% instead of %35. There's really no incentive to stop making that extra money. It's still profit.

There are rare circumstances where the margins are so tight where investors want to pull their equity out of your business because you're not generating exactly X percent of return on investment/profits. It'd have to be a large business and even then it'd be unusual. For the most part, the company will just keep the employee and keep making profits.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. You raise a very good question, though. I don't know why the media doesn't actually ask real questions like this instead of just making blanket statements about Joe's and trickle down economics.
This post was edited on 10/18/08 at 2:14 am
Posted by simonizer
no
Member since Oct 2008
1696 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:18 am to
quote:

I keep reading about how businesses will have to fire people or not expand to keep themselves under 250k profit under a potential future business tax plan. So can someone please break this down?

Company X has a profit of 280k a year. Company X lays off one of their employees that they pay 30k annually to, that includes the $150/month BlueSaver plan through Blue Cross of Louisiana.

That employee obviously generates more than 30k a year in revenue for the company, subsequently the layoff puts Company X under the 250k profit mark.

So how did Company X financially benefit from laying off said employee? And what is Company X's incentive to not expand?



in all actuality most businesses will not give a frick about the 3% increase in taxes, all increased costs will be passed along to the consumer or be partially absorbed by the company. in the event that increased prices will be passed along to the economy , inflationary pressures will be incurred, in the event of cost absorbtion by the company less money will be available for capital expansion or new hiring.

either way an increase in business taxes wil have an adverse affect on the current us economy

also, this response does not even factor in the risk of currently us operating companies to relocate to foreign countries who offer better corporate tax structure.
Posted by Afreaux
Conway Bayou
Member since Aug 2007
47019 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:34 am to
quote:

company x will raise its prices to try and make it feasibly possible to meet its projected earnings.


Wouldn't projected earnings only be relevant to larger corporations, as opposed to a small business that doesn't have shareholders?

Let's say Company X is Tiger District, and sells LSU shirts at $10 a pop. If their profit was at just over 250k, and the result under the new plan was that they earn 2k less annually than the year before, how can we assume that the owner would be guaranteed to raise the price of their shirts?
Posted by simonizer
no
Member since Oct 2008
1696 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 2:51 am to
well 35-39 % increase would be 10k at a 250,000 profit, so at some point the owner would indeed increase the price of his product or cut cost. just because a business is small and doesnt fit the description of a large corporation, the motive is still the same- maximization of profits. until one has been in that position, and understands the day to day bs, the endless taxation of businesses through permits, property taxes, legal issues licenses and day to day headaches, then they really are not in a position to comment on what they can and cannot afford.
Posted by Martavius
Member since Nov 2005
16019 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 8:50 am to
You're looking at this the wrong way. A business is not going to try to stay below the $250K threshold and this is not just about marginal tax rates.

There are other Obama plans that will effect business owners such as lifting caps on payroll taxes the majority of which are employer funded, extending unemployment benefits which will raise employer expenses, forcing employers to pay into a single payer health care system, etc.

A business owner has two options when profitability is effected, raise prices or cut expenses. Don't let the people who say "well, they'll just make a little less for the greater good" fool you. Those reduced margins are going to effect that business owners ability to obtain credit to expand, purchase raw materials and capital goods, make payroll, etc. Cash flow is one of the most important factors in running a business. Those things cascade through our economy quickly.

Now IF a business owner is able to raise his prices without effecting his sales volume, then consumers buying power has been diminished. If he cannot raise prices due to market conditions, expense will be cut which will mean people will directly and indirectly lose their jobs as labor is just about any business's largest expense.
This post was edited on 10/18/08 at 8:54 am
Posted by CAT
Central Arkansas
Member since Aug 2006
7262 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 9:04 am to
quote:

There are other Obama plans that will effect business owners such as lifting caps on payroll taxes the majority of which are employer funded, extending unemployment benefits which will raise employer expenses, forcing employers to pay into a single payer health care system, etc.


All big things. I own a small business. Just three employees and I can say right now it wouldn't take much for me to get rid of one of them. Many small business owners I talk to have a level of comfort with X amount of employees. Maybe not the smartest but I have one employee who is there so I don't have to do little trivial work but if expenses were raised it wouldn't take much for her to go. I have discussed this with others in similar situations as me and this seems to be a common situation. Forcing to carry health insurance would initiate an automatic letting go.
Posted by Martavius
Member since Nov 2005
16019 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 9:15 am to
Frankly just Obama as president doesn't concern me nearly as much as those two dimwits Pelosi and Reid with huge majorities behind them. That's where the real danger lies.
Posted by Reubaltaich
A nation under duress
Member since Jun 2006
5340 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 9:37 am to
Who is to say that IF barry becomes POTUS and the dems get their 'super' majority that they will lower the threshold to say, $30K/yr?

BTW, I believe the threshold is $250K per household. I can't get a straight answer from the hussien another dem apologist websites about the acutal INDIVIDUAL threshold. Some are saying $200K/yr, but I am thinking it is more like $125K/yr per individual.
Posted by Chicken
Jackassistan
Member since Aug 2003
26594 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 9:43 am to
quote:

That employee obviously generates more than 30k a year in revenue for the company,
Obviously why? If that person isn't in sales, that person is most likely not generating any revenue...and if they are in sales, there is no guarantee that he/she is generating that much in revenue.

Posted by Luther Mahoney
Phoenix, AZ
Member since Jun 2008
32 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 10:15 am to
Just a couple of points of clarification (for me):

The 250K is Adjusted Gross?
Small businesses (as yet undefined) would be exempt from the "play or pay" of health benefits?
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
56722 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 11:55 am to
you are leaving out how self employed people will be forced to pay 15% or close to it in SS taxes as Obama wants to remove the cap. So in addition to getting taxed another 4% or so on that extra income, add another 15% on top of it. So your tax has actually increased nearly 20%.
Posted by tirebiter
7K R&G chile land aka SF
Member since Oct 2006
10708 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 12:12 pm to
Martavius ruined my Saturday by writing the "P" word. She needs to be run out on a rail.
Posted by tigeralum06
Member since Oct 2007
2889 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 1:49 pm to
I post this because I think one day Afreaux will figure out economics:

Increasing the tax rate three percent is not going to do to much to an already established business. They have in most instances maximized their market share or have the credit to borrow money if they see potential in a new or existing market.

It actually makes it harder for a growing business due to cash flow issues. If you are a start-up, you borrow money to buy new equipment and/or hire new employees. A company can be netting $250,000, but if all of that is being used to pay off liabilities they do not have it sitting around to be spent on new equipment/employees. Therefore, increasing the tax rate takes cash from the business and hurts their cash flow.

Cash flow is what is used to grow the economy. Thats why they freaked out with the bailout to make sure business still had easy credit.

Increased taxes hurt cash flow!

Cash flow is an important aspect of operating a business that people forget about.

This post was edited on 10/18/08 at 1:51 pm
Posted by Reubaltaich
A nation under duress
Member since Jun 2006
5340 posts
Posted on 10/18/08 at 4:11 pm to
I was watching barry on the barf network stating that he will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that outsource jobs and will give tax cuts to businesses that hire people here in the US.

Sounds like some double-speak there. He is going to raise taxes on those who make $125K/yr but yet he will tax breaks on those who create jobs in the US.

NOW which one is it?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram