3 ms·
Begrudging 3% of profits is not absurd when it is in terms of risk. Imagine you paying 3% of profits on a 50/50 coin toss game. Even a single percent will tee
by nicholas73 14y ago
Begrudging 3% of profits is not absurd when it is in terms of risk. Imagine you paying 3% of profits on a 50/50 coin toss game. Even a single percent will teeter you to a losing proposition. Businesses do not make money every year, thus they want to be compensated with higher returns when they do make money. Unless the IRS compensates you during losing years, every dollar taxed demands that your odds of winning must be much higher. And, while there are loss carry-forward rules, it doesn't help your risk profile because it's game over if you hit bankruptcy by not having enough cash at hand to pay debts and expenses (and your assets get sold at a steep firesale discount).
Now, to be fair, we have no way of knowing if 3% is too much for his risk profile. It may or may not be. But, business risk is also difficult to estimate. As it is, it is difficult enough for the business owner. What chance does a bureaucrat who never owned a business or worked a normal job have?
- bunderbunder 14y ago3% of profits would be one thing. But we're talking about his top marginal personal income tax rate increasing. (Obama's tax plan calls for lowering corporate taxes.) If he fires people over that, it would be a purely vindictive action. His personal income tax rate has no impact on the financial health of his company.