That's an excellent economic theory Brad, and in your case I believe it, but as bigger companies than yours, those who would be most effected by the Corporate Tax increases, send more of their workforce over seas, I have problems believing it. I have no idea how much Stardock brings in a year, but I seriously doubt you make $100m in salary and bonuses every year. The kind of companies that give their CEOs that much money are the ones who will be targetted by tax increases. Not to be mean, but Stardock is no Microsoft, so until that day, I doubt you have much to worry about.

Cheers

Jeblackstar - most new jobs are created by small companies. It's easy to point your finger at some Fortune 100 company and say "Look at those bastards!". But small businesses are the engine of the US economy and have been for quite a few years. And it is the small business that is affected by this.

And Stardock has a lot of people who work from overseas too. We were outsourcing people overseas before the term had even been coined. So what? Have Americans lost their jobs as a result? No. It simply creates a different set of jobs that we hire for domestically. 

And BTW, if they want to raise taxes on people who make $100 million per year then that's news to me. What I heard is they want to raise taxes on anyone who makes $200k per year which essentially means every reasonably successful small business owner. Perhaps John Kerry can also decide which people we should lay off. I can say in all honesty that one of our new hires this year is a direct result of the tax cuts.

My point is that corporate taxes, not personal taxes, will mostly affect those companies who can afford to pay their CEOs $100m a year. Not companies such as yours. I agree, it is easy to point at the Fortune 500 companies and say those bastards. So perhaps those bastards should pay more. That's Kerry's plan, and that would be mine too. Stardock doesn't make enough in a year to reach the amount that Kerry intends to target. If your personal taxes go up, well that's one thing, but you weren't going to pay some new guy's salary out of your personal salary were you?

Cheers

Kerry's plan doesn't touch corporate taxes, Jeb. It raises individual taxes. You said you were a lawyer, why are you even debating this? You should know how LLCs and S-corps operate.

Look, if you raise the individaul rate from say 33% to 39% you're going to effectively cost LLCs and S-corp's tens of thousands of dollars if they're doing any real business. What do you think they'll do? They'll lay off that new worker.

I know it feels good to talk about some big corp being evil but Kerry's plan doesn't even target them one bit.   And btw, as a small business owner, I regularly give up some of my personal salary for my employees when times are tough. Of the 10 years this company has existed, I've gone 3 of them without receiving any significant salary (i.e "poverty level") in order to keep from laying off people.

But let's look at other CEOs too of small businesses. Let's say they pay themselves $250,000 per year. You raise their taxes and they say "Hey,I have expenses, and now I have to pay an extra $20k in taxes? Well, I Walter, the new guy we don't really need him that much, I'll just lay him off so that I can make my house payment on that new house I bought."

 

Frankly, I'm just baffled that you're even trying to argue this point Jeblackstar.

Do you KNOW who the majority of individuals making over $200,000 in the USA are? They're S-corp and LLC people. You must know this already. That's why I'm so baffled. As a former attorney, this is something you would certainly have run into time and time again.

I just watched the VP's speech at the Reagan Library,

He too, wants to know what were the lies.

He also wants to know who the unnamed Foreign Leaders are, and why they should have any influence on an American campaign.

VP Cheney ran down Kerry's record on Iraq, pointing out every flip and flop since 1991, quoting Kerry on the threat of WMD's ( during
the Clinton years ) The removal of Saddam with or without Intl Support ( Again during Clinton's tenure )and then the complete
turnaround once the campaign commenced.

I think the reason he's accused the Republicans of being liars is he's beginning to confuse his own lies with truth.

Allow me to clarify my point further. I'm talking about Kerry's plan to close corporate tax loopholes, and not even going near the 300 billion dollars in taxes Kerry would reimpose on the upper crust. Which, by the way, counts me as one of their number. Yes I know about LLCs and S-corp people, I've defended them and brought suits against them. I think perhaps that our arguements against each other share enough similar points that we are thinking we're arguing against each other and we're really not.

Cheers

The thrust of Kerry's tax policy is to rescind the Bush tax cut on the "rich" (people making $200k). 

Some people apparently think people whose earned income is greater than $200k are somehow taking that money and buying fountains of jewels or something. In reality, because of the way tax law is, most of those people are small business owners. The money the government is confiscating is money that was going to payroll.

While I respect that you are one of those small businessmen who have taken a pay cut to pay for your employees salary, my experience in Law and as someone who solicits donations from Alumni of my university shows that many if not most of small businessmen do not fall in this catagory. For that matter, many small businessmen, in fact again I would argue most, do not pay themselves 200k a year. Most of the small businessmen I know run ski operations, health clinics, lawyers offices, and two small software companies.

Stardock, I believe from what you've written falls into that obnoxious middle ground where you make enough to pay yourself a fairly good salary, yet not enough to handle "onerous" tax burdens. From my experience you are in the minority, but if you have statistics to prove me wrong I would love to see them.

Cheers

It is of course true that, all else equal, lower taxes are better. The problem is that all else is not equal--lower taxes cause deficits, and the size of our deficits is currently utterly unacceptable. Cutting spending isn't going to cover the gap, especially not with our numerous foreign commitments. So somebody will have to end up paying more taxes, and the question is who.

To argue against the proposed Kerry tax hike, you have to argue not that it will hurt some people (which is true of every tax) but that it's a *worse* way for the nation to raise money than the alternatives. (This of course requires offering alternatives.)

And conversely, to argue for the Kerry tax hike, you have to argue that it's a *better* way to raise money than the alternatives, whatever they may be.

I suppose it's also possible to argue that spending cuts will cover the deficit but I would be highly skeptical of any such argument. I don't think it's realistic to expect either candidate to cut spending significantly. After the past four years, Bush certainly would have zero credibility in making such a claim. I don't know Kerry's plans but I doubt they involve deep spending cuts.

And I suppose it's also possible to argue that deficits at this level are just fine, but that's definitely a minority opinion among economists.

One example of a Bush administration lie is their intentional understating of the cost of their medicare bill by $140 billion. Another is the strength of evidence of WMD in Iraq.

As far as crookedness, how about the intentionally leaking (by someone in his administration, probably Karl Rove) of the name of an undercover CIA agent as retribution to Ambassador Joseph Wilson for disagreeing with Bush?

These are just a few examples.

As for what Kerry is FOR, please visit, http://johnkerry.com. He has easily guideable links for each of the major issues in this campaign, and clearly-stated succinct positions, followed by more detailed plans.

The only major tax cut that he is rolling back is that for those who make over $200,000. I think it is a good time to ask the upper-class to make sacrifices to bring down our record decifit and to help pay for the War on Terrorism. The middle-class just isn't well enough off right now.

Of course Kerry cares about France, he's French.

Kerry is not French. Most of his ancestors are Austrian I believe.

Kerry now condemns the Bush administration for acting.

Kerry does not condemn the Bush admin for acting. He criticizes them for acting poorly.