Where? Did you forget to post a link? If you meant to post a link, please answer whether you agree with the definition. Thanks.




If you think there is a significant and even unfair tax burden on small businesses, then you must have some idea of what the average small business costs to run, how much an average small business profits annually, and of course what percentage of that profit is expended in taxes. Thus some kind of ration.
I’m not looking to discuss some one elses opinion. You have made many comments to the effect that you think small business is over taxed. You have an opinion, you’re entitled to it and I’m interested in it, but only if it’s YOUR opinion. If you are voicing someone elses opinion say so, but to voice an opinion of your own requires some kind of critical thought process which includes having done some research and not just repeating what you’ve heard someone else say.



What tax would you have decreased, or eliminated? What incentives would you like to see implemented to appeal to new small business ventures? On what definition of ‘small business’ should those changes come under?



That has absolutely nothing to do with small business being over taxed. It only has to do with how you perceive the effects of business taxation on your own wallet. That’s not what we’re discussing.



You are becoming evangelical here, repeating the same phrase (lower the burden the small business owner) suggests there is no idea what burden there might be to be discussed. It sounds like a regurgitation of something you read and agree with for the sole purpose of showing disagreement with the current administration.



There is no logic – yet. But if you actually answer the questions I’ve posed I might concede that logic is yet possible. Beware – if you choose to cut ‘n paste or simply regurgitate something you’ve read, be sure to have a thorough understanding, because I may ask more questions.






The definition of success can be an individual concept. For example why do multimillionaires or billionaires continue to work? What makes a great leader ‘great’? What makes a person out of work and struggling to pay their rent – start up a non-profit business that will benefit others? For some people success is eeking a meager existence on the charity of others?



Incentive to succeed comes from within – NOTHING will stop a person with the drive to succeed from putting forth their best effort – not taxes, not opinion, and not even lack of funds.
People who need incentive to come from outside the self to pursue success will never have it.



Half of all earnings is still half - the glass half full, and it represents an opportunity to strive to make it fuller. On the other hand some people see only what has been taken and a half empty glass in its place. Part of the ‘empty’ is simply redistributed in the service of the tax payer. You never know when that one catastrophic event will find you with hands held out for help – and all that tax you paid will have seemed worth it.



Education, knowledge, skills, and experience may be all we can ever truly own. It can’t be taken away from you, but its of little value if its not used. Without its use there is nothing further to be gained – that’s where personal ‘incentive’ makes the difference between success and a person who sees the glass half empty and morns the loss. What remains holds no value and brings no joy to the person who worked so hard to attain it and so it will never become more than a burden of debt.

Now – about that tax burden the small business owner bears – are you going to answer my questions?

Ok. First thing...yes. The link I tried to post didn't show up for some odd reason and I didn't realize it.

Here's the link. And yes, I do agree with the definition.

Definition of a small business

Next up.

[If you think there is a significant and even unfair tax burden on small businesses, then you must have some idea of what the average small business costs to run, how much an average small business profits annually, and of course what percentage of that profit is expended in taxes. Thus some kind of ration.
I’m not looking to discuss some one elses opinion. You have made many comments to the effect that you think small business is over taxed. You have an opinion, you’re entitled to it and I’m interested in it, but only if it’s YOUR opinion. If you are voicing someone elses opinion say so, but to voice an opinion of your own requires some kind of critical thought process which includes having done some research and not just repeating what you’ve heard someone else say.

Three words. Michigan Business Tax. It's a tax that hits small businesses particularly hard. You want research, look it up.

What tax would you have decreased, or eliminated? What incentives would you like to see implemented to appeal to new small business ventures? On what definition of ‘small business’ should those changes come under?

See the previous two answers. Small businesses are the ones that employ the majority of employed people in this country. There are quite a few large employers like the auto companies and other manufacturers...but it's small business that drives the United States.

You are becoming evangelical here, repeating the same phrase (lower the burden the small business owner) suggests there is no idea what burden there might be to be discussed. It sounds like a regurgitation of something you read and agree with for the sole purpose of showing disagreement with the current administration

Nice try. But I agreed with the idea throughout EVERY administration I have been alive and cognizant to actually understand the concepts. It has nothing to do with this particular administration.

There is no logic – yet. But if you actually answer the questions I’ve posed I might concede that logic is yet possible. Beware – if you choose to cut ‘n paste or simply regurgitate something you’ve read, be sure to have a thorough understanding, because I may ask more questions.

If you cannot, or refuse to recognize the logic behind that statement, then there really isn't much to discuss with you because it would appear that you are far to the other side of the fence and there wouldn't be much chance for middle ground. Are you one of those that feel that successful business is inherently greedy and evil?

The definition of success can be an individual concept. For example why do multimillionaires or billionaires continue to work? What makes a great leader ‘great’? What makes a person out of work and struggling to pay their rent – start up a non-profit business that will benefit others? For some people success is eeking a meager existence on the charity of others?

Wow.

While it's true that success is an " individual " idea, the thought that someone feeling it's ok to " succeed " on the sweat and effort of others, without actually putting in any effort of their own is a concept that I just can't grasp.

Incentive to succeed comes from within – NOTHING will stop a person with the drive to succeed from putting forth their best effort – not taxes, not opinion, and not even lack of funds.
People who need incentive to come from outside the self to pursue success will never have it.

That's not entirely true. People who have the drive to succeed will also look for the best ways to do so. If they know that a certain path is going to get them " punished " and wind up being told that they make " too much money ", then they will choose some other path. Some other way to consider themselves successful.

Half of all earnings is still half - the glass half full, and it represents an opportunity to strive to make it fuller. On the other hand some people see only what has been taken and a half empty glass in its place. Part of the ‘empty’ is simply redistributed in the service of the tax payer. You never know when that one catastrophic event will find you with hands held out for help – and all that tax you paid will have seemed worth it.

Lemme tell ya something. When YOU are the one busting your *** every single day, putting in 18 hour days in an effort to become successful, someone telling you that you " make too much " isn't gonna make you a " glass half full " kind of person. Not when you have to work TWICE as hard to make half as much.

Ok, I did and then I made some comparisons.
http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/BTI2010_2.pdf

Business Tax Index 2010:
Best to Worst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Business Tax Index 2010: State Rankings from lowest to highest tax – Michigan rank 29th with a tax index of 37.814, the lowest is South Dakota at 10.94 and there are 17 states that range from 40.402 up to 54.970 & Dist. Of Columbia at 58.805.

State Rankings of Top Personal Income Tax Rates
Michigan ranks 15th at 4.350, the highest is Oregon at 11%.

State Rankings of Top Corporate Income Tax Rates
Michigan ranks 19th 6.040 the highest is Pennsylvania at 9.990.

What can I surmise from this? First – every STATE seems to put the largest tax burden on small business. The individual income tax in some states seems to be much lower in comparison to their state ranking for small business tax – as in the case of Michigan which ranks 29th highest in small business tax but only 15th for personal tax.

Perhaps if personal tax were higher – say equal to Wisconsin at 7.750 then Small businesses taxes could be lowered. That would be good for everyone, because all the money the Small Business owner retains instead of paying taxes could be put back into society by hiring more people, growing their business, and just overall renovations and upgrades, etc. Right?

But either way, STATE related income tax have nothing to do with the Federal government, so you can’t blame that on the current Federal Administration, Obama is not the job killer in this case. In fact Republicans are the majority in Michigan State Senate – 22 to 16 something I think you didn’t know as you stated in an earlier post:

>>” Of course, economic principals don't matter at all to the Democrats and Lefties.”<<





That’s correct, I think small businesses are something like 90% of all business but that was not an appropriate responce to the actual question. However, Michigan is, basically, no different in its tax impositions on small business than any other state and are equally in line with other States in the much lower Corporate tax.





“The logic behind that statement” was in reference to your phrase “lower the tax burden on the small business owner”. There is nothing logical that backs up the statement. Making a statement without any kind of support is simply an opinion and what it’s based on is anyone’s guess. That was why I asked you to elaborate. I was looking for something – well like Michigan Governor Granholm has suggested:



But you didn’t because you have no idea how you would possibly go about reducing the small Business tax without offsetting it somewhere - and neither do I and neither does the Michigan State Senate - or maybe they do but are afraid to act.

Well this getting long so I’ll move on here.

An earlier post included the following quote.



To sum it up – STATE income taxes are not controlled by FEDERAL government.

The Michigan Business Tax and its Corporate tax is comparable to every other state.

Also, since the Federal government has nothing to do with this “excessive tax burden” it has to be recognized that the State is responsible for that burden and it just so happens that the Michigan Senate is a Republican Majority, who refuses to risk their JOBs by addressing any tax issues at this time, even though the Governor has been persistent in trying to motivate them, even to the point of bringing logical suggestions to the table.

So we can just leave out the >>”Lefties and the Obama apologists”<< in any future discussion of STATE matters and especially those states with a Republican majority……

Simple economic principles PROVIDE all the logic that is needed.

And lemme tell ya something. Our fabulous governor is making these " suggestions " now...after how many years of us seeing her policies drive this state into the ground.

Ms. Granholm is making these suggestions so that a Democrat has SOMETHING to run on.

SHE can't run again, so SHE is providing " ideas " on how to " lower " taxes.

Lemme tell ya something here. Since you don't live here, I suppose I can forgive you for actually buying into that crap.

Why, exactly, did she not " suggest " these things a few years ago??? Because cutting taxes, or even " restructuring " them is NOT on their agenda.

I read the Free Press AND Detroit News every day. One leans left ( The Free Press ) and one leans right ( The News ) . I figure between the two, I can figure out the truth for myself.

Over the last couple of years, there were several stories in BOTH papers about the governor and lawmakers wanting to RAISE the taxes because there was less revenue coming in because people were leaving the state. Especially the small businesses and young wage earners.

You, having not lived here for the last 8 years, have not heard all the crap that has been promised, and seen the actual ACTIONS.

But, of course, because you AGREE with it, you'll use that story as a shining example of Democrat " leadership ".

15th out of 50 states is still not very good. Especially considering that everything POSSIBLE should be done to draw businesses TO this state after the collapse of the auto industry. The job losses in the auto industry have been going on for quite a while under her watch. Why is it that, just now, as she is about to LEAVE OFFICE, she is suddenly coming up with this idea when it could have been done YEARS ago?

Like I stated before, there have been several stories over the last couple of years about the governor and her Democrat friends in the capital wanting to raise everyone's taxes. I think it's a damn good thing that Republicans DO have the majority or the taxes here would be even higher than they are and even MORE people would have left the state.

So let me ask you this.

Why is it that to lower the taxes on small businesses, it has to be " offset "??? Why can't they just cut spending for their pet projects??

It's always, " We CAN'T cut spending!!! We would have to cut EDUCATION spending!!! * insert hand wringing here * ".

Oh wait. Dems think spending is the way to go. Hasn't worked out real well here in Michigan but that's just because we haven't had the " right " people in charge.

So we can just leave out the >>”Lefties and the Obama apologists”<< in any future discussion of STATE matters and especially those states with a Republican majority……

I'll be happy to. As soon as the Federal Government lowers the FICO tax and stops penalizing businesses for hiring people. I'll also stop as soon as we get someone in the Presidential office who DOESN'T think that people who make more than 250K a year " make too much money " and should hand over half of it to be spent as someone else see fit.

JAG and Redy, I just have to say this...fantastic display of how to debate politics properly! Seriously, I get tired of the other people just saying 'wrong' or 'right,' between you two maybe they can learn something.

I would debate this but between JAG and Redy there is really nothing else to contribute to this discussion. Always good to see a honest, solid debate instead of name calling or throwing out a 'pffftttt' or some other childish stuff.

You know me D.

I'm not gonna try to change anyone's mind.

And I'll respect their thoughts and opinions. They usually return the favor.

With certain exceptions of course.

But those that can't do so usually have nothing to contribute anyway.

Well thank-you. I've noticed that this Politics, Current News & Events forum contains a constant flow of articles and cut 'n paste is a good way to bring the article up for discussion.

The problem I too often see is that there is a constant barage of articles, and occasionally a few words 'bashing' the subject of the article. Consequently, there seems to be little actual discussion.

I think some topics are worthy of discussing further as in the case of how this post had evolved.

Justaguy, like others often do, exploded the topic by adding a lot of unrelated elements and attempted to bring it into the same focus by attributing the bad effects of his new element to the "unrelated" and already 'bashed' subject of the OP.

He had some points to make but what happens is that others get loose interest because they see the point being brought up are related only in terms of biased views and not with any actual facts which would connect the issues.

Once I realized what Justaguy was trying to bring up, I tried to focus the attention in that direction, but it was HIS choice of topic and I didn't want to lead his conversation, I only meant to focus it, because I think it's an important topic.

Unfortunately, people have tired of thinking or perhaps they have have lost track of the thread, which finds its way to the BOTTOM of the Daily pile of additional new threads of endless articles which few end up discussing but only adding opinion to their name calling instead of creating a real discussion.

So THANKS Justaguy, to you for continuing to get your point accross.

Redy...

Considering what I have seen in Michigan after having lived here for nearly my entire life, the points that I brought up were, indeed, relevant to the topic and the title of this thread.

It's Democrat tax policies and lack of economic responsibility ( the Republicans are guilty as well but it's been Democrats here in Michigan for the last 8 years ) that have led this state into the spiral it's been in.

The fact that she ( the Governor ) decided THIS year, to start making noise about cutting taxes when for the last 8 years we have been hearing about tax RAISING attempts, brings me and nearly everyone I know to believe that it is nothing more than a political ploy and not indicative of the policies we would see IF another Democrat gets elected to lead this state.

When Obama was getting ready to name a Supreme Court nominee...Granholm's name came up and the people here were basically BEGGING for her to be his choice.

Either way, Republican or Democrat, I am not going to be staying in this state for very much longer anyway.

There is just nothing here.

Ok, so you’ve had YEARS to influence your State Senate to prevent the policies from becoming law OR to request that your state legislatures ‘review’ and correct or repeal those policies that have proven ineffective. (in fact I noticed one was repealed, so influence by the people works)
A Point I want to make here:
All too often people align their own perspectives of government with the perspectives of a political party. People will tend to ‘expect’ the actions of their State (& Federal) representatives to correspond to their own political and social ideologies. Obviously, in this case, the Michigan Republican majority legislatures did not act in accordance with your beliefs. Aligning individual perspectives with that of a particular party line does not absolve individuals of the responsibility of staying connected with their reps and voicing their concerns and opinions of legislative actions.

It needs to be understood that each party consists of members whose perspectives, on any given issue, run along a spectrum and may or may not be consistent with our own. To continue to suggest that the State/country has gone to hell solely due to the (slur of ridiculous name-calling) dems/repubs is not only counterproductive but shows a lack of responsibility of our personal role in how government works.

You may be one who is totally involved, constantly calling your reps, writing them, or filling out their on-line or mail requests for your opinion, but you have to realize you are only one – so you have to think why didn’t my reps respond to these policies as I would have? Regardless, no matter the party one aligns with, once the representative has taken office, s/he is your representative and you and others, like you, are suppose to be their guide – where were all the Republicans and why where their views not promoted – perhaps they expected their Reps to know their minds (based on party) but now we both know that’s not how it works.



On whose agenda? – the state legislature’s agenda? Isn’t that supposed to be influenced by constituents, and specifically, in the case of Michigan, by the ‘Republican’ ideal? So who is to blame for this lack of proper ‘agenda’? (rhetorical question, referring back to our role as constituents)



You are correct, I’ve been living in Indiana, and believe me we have been dealing with the same issue of attracting and keeping the young workforce and especially the young and educated workforce. We even have a department dedicated to figuring all that out? I’ve been following it and the number of educated people who have made their own inputs. Keeping up with it helps me decide how I want to respond to current legislative issues.



Not at all, I never said I agreed, I was simply making factual points from which to base the discussion. I vote for whomever I think will serve the constituents not the party – I have voted both parties and in the end no matter who my representative is, they hear from me, and I keep track of how they vote and what new policies they legislate.



As you said, I don’t live there, and my research was constrained by time, though I tried to find good source material. I spent a lot of time reviewing the “Michigan Business Tax” including its conception and instatement. Initially it was meant to reduce the tax burden on small business, in fact it seemed that was one of the major points of the policy.

I can’t say what went wrong but I did find a possible partial answer and today I did some comparison research with other states to see if it might be valid. It seems that over the last decade both Fed and State have been changing tax impositions on all businesses. But what has happened, particularly with new business ventures and those that remain small is that they have not kept up with all the options available to them to lessen their own tax burden. The greatest examples are in how they have set up and maintain their business (ie. S-corp, partnership, LLC, or Corporation). I realize this is only part of the problem, but many States have recognized it as well and have actually created entitlements or State agencies devoted to educate the State’s small business owners – too many of whom do not take advantage of this advocacy.



I laughed at the last part because I feel the same frustration. So … I looked into it. Let me run this past you and see what you think.

State governments have decided part of their responsibility is to ‘create jobs’. Although this has an element of truth, I think it has gotten out of hand. First of all, the State uses its tax and other revenues, combined with Federal entitlements for such things as land improvements (bridges, levees, sewers, roads, etc) which does create jobs. Except for ‘administration’ these types of jobs are basically short term and when privatized, as they are, these jobs may include workers from other states. BUT that’s not all bad because those workers ‘spend’ some portion of their pay supporting businesses in the state – and the businesses pay taxes.

State’s feel compelled to maintain this kind of job creation. First of all, some of it is absolutely necessary, repair of levies and roads and sewers must be maintained. Schools must be competitive or the State fails to attract and retain the young workforce and their families. Job creation in this is more of a byproduct of State government, but it has become viewed by some States as their responsibility (job provision). State gov then “requires” a certain amount of revenue to support that mindset. The state then raises taxes, often of businesses, in order to keep “creating jobs”.

I think that’s the problem. The tax burden on small businesses, and even on the people, is an effort to maintain their status as job creators but the jobs they create should be viewed as a byproduct of State welfare, growth and development. If the state does not recognize the error of its mindset, it will try to raise taxes in any area that will create State revenue. But THAT is an error, because it is the small business that generates the greatest amount of long term employment, therefore, as you have pointed out, it is the small businesses that should be counted on to ‘create the jobs’, no the State.

So I do agree with you, States need to reduce administration and support business through privatization, and maintain only the infrastructures of State that are too large and costly for any business alone to support.

So what do you think?

PS - I was interrupted with an important phone call while writing this so I have not considered your most post before this one. Just saying - in case you think I have ignored it, I havn't, just havn't gotten there yet.

If you go to another state becasue of a job, you may find yourself in a Stae worse then Michigan.

If you are actually making a conscious choice of State before you move, go on line and check out State tax provisions, the most recent State legislative session and what transpired, and even the State constitution. Key in the issues you are most interested in along with the State name and view what State news articles have been reporting about those issues.

ALSO, in case you havn't done so, check out employment opportunities by your skills, education, and your choice of trades/jobs with ONet
at
http://online.onetcenter.org/
and the crosswalk with DOT which is found separately at
http://www.occupationaloutlook-handbook.net/

They also provide the number of job opportunities, per your requirements, by state and how much those jobs typically yield in each State.

It might help.

Contrary to the thoughts of some, I don't align myself with any party. I simply look for a candidate that doesn't seem to want to govern with emotion rather than by what is actually good for everyone in the state. Too bad we haven't had one of those candidates in a VERY long time.





It is, indeed, supposed to be influenced by the constituents. But we both know that once politicians are elected, the people they are supposed to represent become very low priority.





Understood. The problem is that no one in the legislature here is coming up with any real solutions. One of the problems is that, because of term limits, neither side is willing to meet in the middle on most issues. They dig in their heels and refuse to work together. I see a lot of people screaming for term limits in the House and Senate. Well....from living here....I can understand why they think it would be a good idea...but in reality....it doesn't seem to work very well.





Fair enough. My apologies for the cheap shot.





Here's a part of what went wrong. Too many politicians got the idea that spending more than they took in was a good idea. Then they needed to get more and more.

How many Small Business owners have time to read through a 200 volume tax code ( might be an exaggeration but not by much ) to find all of their " options " to lower their tax burden?? How many of them can actually afford to pay an accountant to do it for them?

The guy with the landscaping business who is busting his butt 15 hours a day doesn't have a whole lot of time or energy to sift through the 200,000 words of legalese. He also doesn't make enough to pay an accountant.





Ummm...considering that Michigan's roads and bridges are consistently rated as some of the worst in the country....that SURE isn't what they are spending our taxes on.



So why can't they realize that they, in effect, are STOPPING businesses from creating jobs?? What blinds them to that fact?



I agree. If states and the Federal Government ( the idea of " entitlements " is something that should be looked at VERY closely because it's been twisted FAR beyond it's intended purpose ) would get out of the way or the true job growth that small businesses create, the states and the country as a whole would be much better equipped to pull us out of the hole we find ourselves in.

Privatization is a good idea for the majority of Government " services " ( both state AND federal ). But, the politicians can't really allow that to happen because then the need for tax revenue would go down. Then they would have absolutely no excuse for not lowering the tax burden. Not only on small businesses...but on the population as a whole.

As far as infrastructures that are " too big " for any business to handle alone....

Trust me....a business can grow to accomodate ANY task. IF the incentive to do so is there.

There IS nothing in the State Governments that couldn't be handled by private sector businesses.



No worries. :-)