Now, not only are you jerking around employees (and have a damn hard time hiring anyone qualified with that reputation), but you are incurring more costs than you thought! How? I dont know if they have it in your place, but there is something here called the UI tax. And guess what? That goes up the MORE you fire people. So if the company had waited to hire people when they KNEW how much money they had (note the estimated above), they would not have had to fire them all the time, and incur ANOTHER tax.
But with all this, I still donot expect you to understand. In your perfect world, companies make the same money every month, so they can work on fiscal month basis, and hire people before uncle sam gets his dough. But as you can see (if you want to read and understand), is Uncle Sam is going to get his money anyway.
Oh, and one more thing. While ALL profits are taxed, not all losses can be written off against future earnings. And get this one, companies do not get rebates when they LOSE money. They just can offset future tax payments with part of the current losses.
You ARE trying to be deliberatly obtuse.
No one said that they are trying to pay profit taxes on a monthly basis. At the end of their yearly report, they simply calculate gross revenue, they deduct expenses, they deduct other tax benefit they might have earned, and then they have the net profit. They pay profit taxes on the net profit. There is no guesswork there.
But a man's paid salary is part of the expenses. So let's say Obama raises Stardock's corporate taxes from 40% to 45% (random numbers thrown in the air, for argument's sake) as Draginol seems to be so afraid. If Stardock has 1 Billion in gross revenu, but 900 millions in different expenses (salaries, real estate, etc...) he had to pay 40% of the 100 million left, and now it's 45%.
If he want to check wether he wants to hire a new employee, looking at the profit margin POST-tax when he makes a decision is.. well, stupid, since the money in excess that he will use is the one before taxes. Either a new employee will be worth the cost, and he should hire him regardless of the new tax rate, or it isn't. Before and after the tax cut, he has as much money to pay staff and expand. Actually, a tax raise is a good incentive to private companies to re-invest money, since it's considered a bad time to cash in on those company, and until the tax rate diminish, it's a better economical decision to merely wait and re-invest and hope to gain even more money.
Some public companies have to deal with sharky shareholders that are quite aggressive when it comes to final return on their investments, and the change in the corporate taxe rate will force the CEOs of those companies to fire people/hire less because they have to keep the shareholders happy. But the way I understood it, Stardock's shareholder (singular) is also their CEO. Whatever change there is in the corporate tax rate will only influence how much cash gets into his own personnal bank account, not the money available to pay new staff.
And since a talented new staff, new projects on his part, or any kind of expenditure will increase Stardock's networth anyway on the long run (merely delaying the money that was supposed to get to him), Draginol's personnal fortune grows anyway with Stardock's (the joy of private ownership). What was he whining about?
Oh yhea. His candidate lost, and he tries to make up excuses.
