Illinois, Which Passed Tax Hikes In January, Loses More Jobs Than Any Other State In The Nation

[R68 Subway Car]

Something that will never make the front page of the New York Times:

 

 

http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4362

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah, let's keep raising the taxes.... Real "genius" idea... You raise the taxes and those increased costs have to go somewhere....

[SubwayGuy]

Illinois is dysfunctional for other reasons. It raised taxes on corporations and on individuals.

 

I have suggested neither. I have suggested raising taxes on high earning individuals and couples, raising capital gains tax rates on accounts that do not qualify as retirement accounts (IRA, Roth, 401k, 457) while lowering corporate tax rates to stimulate employment growth. This acts as a deterrent to companies paying their executives huge sums of money at the expense of either a) paying their workforce more or hiring more people.

 

Either a or b generates more tax revenue for the municipality anyway. But more importantly, either a or b decreases unemployment.

 

Taxing wage EARNERS and all businesses (including small businesses) as Illinois has done is a recipe for a disaster, and I have never suggested anything like that in any of my posts.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[St Louis Car 09]

Womp Womp.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Illinois is dysfunctional for other reasons. It raised taxes on corporations and on individuals.

 

I have suggested neither. I have suggested raising taxes on high earning individuals and couples, raising capital gains tax rates on accounts that do not qualify as retirement accounts (IRA, Roth, 401k, 457) while lowering corporate tax rates to stimulate employment growth. This acts as a deterrent to companies paying their executives huge sums of money at the expense of either a) paying their workforce more or hiring more people.

 

Either a or b generates more tax revenue for the municipality anyway. But more importantly, either a or b decreases unemployment.

 

Taxing wage EARNERS and all businesses (including small businesses) as Illinois has done is a recipe for a disaster, and I have never suggested anything like that in any of my posts.

 

The problem with your proposal is that small businesses may actually fall into what you would consider to be "high wage earners" and they would slammed with higher taxes. There are plenty of high earning couples that are in business together that could be considered "high wage earners".

[SubwayGuy]

The problem with your proposal is that small businesses may actually fall into what you would consider to be "high wage earners" and they would slammed with higher taxes. There are plenty of high earning couples that are in business together that could be considered "high wage earners".

 

Only if they are a proprietorship or partnership. And if that's the case, they get to keep all the money they make without paying corporate taxes on it, and can act unilaterally to pay themselves what they want - so in that case, they are actually "earning" and "keeping" the money in the same way that any wage earner is. That's also why the proprietorship or the partnership is not an advantageous structure for doing business in the long run - people tend to pocket profits during good times, and shutter the business during lean times rather than leaving the money invested in the business.

 

If the couple wants to protect themselves from legal liability, they can incorporate, or at least create an LLC that elects for corporate taxation. Then the business becomes a separate legal entity that pays its own taxes, and the members of the LLC (in this case the couple) determine their own compensation. With an LLC electing for corporate taxation, no formal meetings are necessary to do this, and the only members are the couple...so they can decide their compensation over dinner if they'd like.

 

Therefore it becomes beneficial to insulate the couple from the corporation since the corporations would be subject to a lower tax rate and can reinvest in expansion or raises for workers, while only that received directly by the owners above a certain threshold is subject to higher rates. Same case as a large corporation - tax breaks if you reinvest, tax penalties if you enrich yourselves at the expense of paying workers more or hiring more workers.