Posted by slashtc on 9/30/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
I don't think people understand the differences of small business and large corporations. They do not operate the same, nor is the owner/employee relationship the same. It's unlikely someone at a Fortune 100 company is volunteering to take a little less money for something else (it's even less likely it would be offered), but that scenario is highly plausible at a small business and might make complete sense for both sides.

Let's say that's all true.

That's not what Mike is saying.

Mike looked at this plan:
income 0-35k tax rate 0
income 35k-75k tax rate 10
income 75-some other number tax rate 20

and argued that business owners would manipulate salaries to take advantage of the tax brackets.

It's literally the weirdest argument that I've ever seen anyone make here. Primarily because it doesn't make any sense at all.

I actually argued that you create more opportunities to manipulate salaries(or taxes) by creating tax brackets so close to one another.

Do you think businesses take advantage of every possible advantage they can find to increase the bottom line?

I do, but I don't think tax brackets are a "possible advantage" because this kind of manipulation is not happening now and because of the fact that gross salary and taxable income are not the same thing.

And, again, my example was just an example. Lowering taxes on the bottom section is the goal. If you see a better way to do that, cool.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/30/2016 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slashtc on 9/30/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
I don't think people understand the differences of small business and large corporations. They do not operate the same, nor is the owner/employee relationship the same. It's unlikely someone at a Fortune 100 company is volunteering to take a little less money for something else (it's even less likely it would be offered), but that scenario is highly plausible at a small business and might make complete sense for both sides.

Let's say that's all true.

That's not what Mike is saying.

Mike looked at this plan:
income 0-35k tax rate 0
income 35k-75k tax rate 10
income 75-some other number tax rate 20

and argued that business owners would manipulate salaries to take advantage of the tax brackets.

It's literally the weirdest argument that I've ever seen anyone make here. Primarily because it doesn't make any sense at all.

If you're not willing to say all that is true, you aren't capable of having a discussion on this. It is true, we don't have to say it is.

Business owners will manipulate anything they can to their advantage. Salaries qualify as anything. If you don't believe that, you've either never owned a business or far more trusting than you should be. It's possible mike doesn't know what he's talking about and I am misunderstanding him; it's more likely you don't know what he's trying to say because you're not making an effort to understand or you're not capable of it.

And, as I said, I don't know the tax laws, you don't know the tax laws, so why do you think everyone else would know the tax laws? When you start something like 0 under 20, 5 under 30, 10 under 40, etc, etc, you create opportunities for the man to manipulate employees who might know even less about tax laws.

As a business owner, I already get a lot of breaks.

With BL, you have to use extra words, repetitively, if what you're saying doesn't fit his narrative. I failed to say "taxable income" every time.

Posted by slashtc on 9/30/2016 5:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/30/2016 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slashtc on 9/30/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
I don't think people understand the differences of small business and large corporations. They do not operate the same, nor is the owner/employee relationship the same. It's unlikely someone at a Fortune 100 company is volunteering to take a little less money for something else (it's even less likely it would be offered), but that scenario is highly plausible at a small business and might make complete sense for both sides.

Let's say that's all true.

That's not what Mike is saying.

Mike looked at this plan:
income 0-35k tax rate 0
income 35k-75k tax rate 10
income 75-some other number tax rate 20

and argued that business owners would manipulate salaries to take advantage of the tax brackets.

It's literally the weirdest argument that I've ever seen anyone make here. Primarily because it doesn't make any sense at all.

If you're not willing to say all that is true, you aren't capable of having a discussion on this. It is true, we don't have to say it is.

Business owners will manipulate anything they can to their advantage. Salaries qualify as anything. If you don't believe that, you've either never owned a business or far more trusting than you should be. It's possible mike doesn't know what he's talking about and I am misunderstanding him; it's more likely you don't know what he's trying to say because you're not making an effort to understand or you're not capable of it.

I'm not saying that companies don't try to take advantage. I'm saying there's nothing to take advantage of in this scenario. At least no more than there already is.

There are many tax brackets now and many people have salaries around the step up points. I've never seen or heard of an employer leaning on the employee to get the employee to take less by arguing that they'd pay less in taxes. This argument is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

For example, there is a bracket step up (15% to 25%) at just over 50k for HOH filers. That's the median wage in this country, so if Mike's theory is true, you'd expect to hear lots of stories about companies telling employees to take $48k instead of 52k to save in taxes.

But you don't.

Because it doesn't happen.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/30/2016 5:59:00 PM (view original):
For example, there is a bracket step up (15% to 25%) at just over 50k for HOH filers. That's the median wage in this country, so if Mike's theory is true, you'd expect to hear lots of stories about companies telling employees to take $48k instead of 52k to save in taxes.

But you don't.

Because it doesn't happen.

Are you sure? Again, you have to change your thinking. Don't think Corporate America because it doesn't happen there. I promise you all sorts of things happen in small businesses. All sorts of things.

Do you have even anecdotal evidence that it's happening?

I genuinely think that Mike was just throwing out a contrarian argument here. I don't think he even believes that this happens or would happen. But, instead of just bowing out and hoping it blows over or just saying, "yeah whatever, I was just throwing it out there," Mike goes 100% Trump and won't give in, even when it makes him look dumb.

he looks dumb anyway, so what's the difference?

Posted by wylie715 on 9/30/2016 6:20:00 PM (view original):
he looks dumb anyway, so what's the difference?

touché

Posted by bad_luck on 9/30/2016 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Do you have even anecdotal evidence that it's happening?

Not that I would be willing to share. I have owned a business. I know people that have owned businesses. I knew my accountant very well. Stuff happens.