Hypothesis: Trump does not hurt his fellow Republicans in elections, and most Democrats don't care.

Liberals are Sheep.

The other half of the chart Maddow puts up seems relevant. Didn't Trump become President because his opponent used lots of resources going after unwinnable elections?

DCCC SHOULD be removed because they rigged the race against Sanders.

Greg Laden, what the hell are you talking about?

http://www.startribune.com/special-election-in-county-that-backed-trump…

Was there another election in Minnesota that Democrats didn't pursue?

Ergo, Russia SHOULD be removed because they rigged the race for Trump.

Bipartisan Establishment War Party is on it. Removing General Flynn was one step. They also seek war with China, Iran, Syria, maybe Venezuela, varying parts of Africa, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, maybe Iraq again, and Yemen. For some reason Saudi Arabia is not on the list.

"DCCC SHOULD be removed because they rigged the race against Sanders."

Once again, good lord.

Mike, you may not have read the article you link to. This was not an election Democrats fought for.

And, DCCC did not rig an election, and has nothing to do with the presidential nomination process.

Mike, as with RickA, is into "alternative facts".

What should Dems have done differently in that election?

You are right that DCCC is separate from DNC. Mere suspicion on my part that the same parties are involved.

I bet "Mike" thinks that Acorn were justifiably shut down too.

Because dirty hippies run the planet for the illuminati or some shit... It's the only explanation why "mike"'s life is so shit.

Greg,

I have always been for a more aggressive approach by Democrats, but we also have to face the structural problems.

It's more about a coherent and cohesive strategy than a lack of will, I think.

The Republicans figured out that they could gobble up State governments one-at-a-time and leverage that to national power. How do you get that approach to work for Dems?

Think about the psychology of money-donors. Dems think about "causes"; R's think about power. Same for young volunteers.

Who makes the decisions about which State to target?

Brainstorms has it exactly wrong: Right-wingers are the sheep, and liberals are the unherdable cats.

Greg,

And then there's this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/business/boeing-union-south-carolina…

I'm not saying there's no cohesive national message that would work at least to some extent in all States, but let's get to work figuring out what it is. Any suggestions?

Think about the psychology of money-donors.

Get rid of grey light money from politics.

http://wolf-pac.com

Your representatives are supposed to represent you by the vote, not by the dollar.

But conservative representatives believe in the principle of "one dollar, one vote".

I think part of the problem is that Democrats assume, hope for, rely on, changing the rules and the key details of the game, such as gerrymandering, dark money, pac money, etc.

Democrats are waiting for Elizabeth Warren to wave a magic wand and make those problems all go away, then everything will be fair.

Zebra @ ~ 12
Right-wingers are vampire sheep. The rest are fluffy unicorns gamboling about in the mysterious reaches of The Enchanted Forest.

Greg @ ~ 16
'Resist' is heartening and may be more intense and widespread than 'Occupy'. But... The point about Warren is taken. After Obama won, it was as though voters said "we're done here" and packed up their bags.

The pressure was off-- including any meaningful critique of Obama or any serious support for the obstacles he faced. The obstructionist bastards in congress should have been swept out and hounded into obscurity.

Uh, I don;t think the democrats want pac/dark/bribe money to go away, with or without Elizabeth Warren. They, as in the "sweeping generalisation" want it to stay because they get money for playing ball.

But that's the politicians getting bribed, the lobbyists who have a well paid job, and the merry-go-round of industry-lobby-industry-politician-industry-lobby-politician-... to continue. It's their job on the line if it stops.

But that doesn't mean the democrats, as in each and every one of them.

Indeed, despite even closer money ties to business and bribes, most republicans want money out of politics too.

But the media won't carry you and will berate and belittle you if you're not open to massive bribery (since this will be paid to them for the commercials that make people recognise the name on the ballot), so the money has to be taken out BEFORE politicians who aren't open to bribes become "electable" by "common wisdom".

hence

http://wolf-pac.com

has a large following (and a massive uphill battle to win, because overriding the "wishes" of the political class is made deliberately difficult) in both R and D voters.

Conservatives are Wolves.

~ # 17

Should read "...support for [him against] the obstacles he faced..."

Name calling of entire parties of people is not helpful.

Even thinking that all conservatives are evil and bad, but that all liberals are good and nice means you have already lost.

Not all conservatives are evil and not all liberals are good.

What really matters is what are you for and why.

What are you against and why.

You may find that you are with some conservatives on some issues and against on others.

You may even find you are against some liberals on some of your pet issues.

It is way more nuanced than this thread is making it sound.

Republicans spent over 25 years working on politics at the state level.

It will take at least that long for liberals to make a dent in state politics.

Class warfare isn't working - millions of lower and middle class people voted for a billionaire.

Identity politics isn't working.

I think it is back to issues - that is the future.

But I am conservative/libertarian, so feel free to ignore my unsolicited advice.

Nah, they WANT to be wolves. They're jackals, though. Rats, even. They scurry around corpses that other things created and feed off it, insisting that they're not responsible for any deaths.

But, again, this is the majority of the VISIBLE conservative. Most of the actual conservatives really don't think that differently. Most of what even most trump supporters voted for were progressive actions.

It's the likes of "Mick" and "Dick" who make it appear like they're all insane frothing maniacs.

And those morons don't want you to believe any different, else they won't be able to hide and manipulate others on base tribalism.

"Name calling of entire parties of people is not helpful."

Oh fuck off dick.

you do nothing but that, and are PROUD of it, so you don't get to whine and whinge and blame everyone else.

YOU ARE THE CAUSE OF IT.

So STFU, sit down, and let the adults talk.

Interesting observation:

Sheep and wolves do not have morals; they have typical behaviors and strategies.

RickA immediately jumps to assigning and assuming moral values where there weren't any to begin with.

Then he complains that others are making unfair moral valuations, acting all butt-hurt about it.

It is both revealing and hilarious.

Greg - Warren is apparently not polling all that well at present - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-23/elizabeth-warren-risk-losing-h… and just yesterday https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/15/poll-warren-wouldnt-beat-trump-20…

The issue of morals is out of place in politics as it has been practiced here for quite some time.

If morals were considered important in a leader we would not have had LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, "W" Bush, and certainly not the current administration.

I don't know what the general public does want in a leader, but I'm certain morality is high on the list.

Greg #16,

Yes, the Left has its Authoritarian Personality Magical Thinking immature types as well, who are (were) easily misled by the Putin Boys posing as progressives.

Anyone who really believes this is an existential fight for freedom and democracy (and the climate) should be willing to discard childish righteous posturing and concentrate on winning. Maybe support someone who will "say anything to win" because the EPA and SCOTUS, boring as their activities seem compared to breathlessly sharing tweets and facebookmemes, really matter.

I think the vast majority of Dems do get this, but we are at a disadvantage for the reasons cited.

Brainstorms #24:

I was actually referring to your #15 "one dollar, one vote".

I got the impression that you were talking morals in that comment - implying that all conservative reps could be bribed.

Perhaps I was mistaken?

But if you say no there is no party bashing going on in this thread I will believe you.

Are you saying there is no party bashing going on here?

Yes, RickA, you were mistaken...

"One dollar, one vote" means "for every dollar you possess, you get one vote".

I'll let you "do the math" to figure out the rest.

Here are some interesting statistics:

In 2013 (last tax data available) the top 50% of individual tax returns (69,156,578 returns of 138,313,155 total) earned 88.51% of AGI and paid 97.22% of all individual income taxes.

The income divide line was $36,841. If your AGI was 36841 or above, you were in the top 50% of income tax filers, below that and you were in the bottom 50%.

The Bottom 50% earned 11.49% of the AGI and paid 2.78% of all individual income taxes.

The Top 1% (1,383,132 tax filers), those who earned 428,713 or higher, earned 19.04% of AGI and paid 37.80% of the total individual income taxes.

You can find this data here:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-u…

Class warfare doesn't work because everybody wants to earn more than $36,841 (and 50% of tax filers do).

And yet, even somebody who earns 36841 is paying more than their fair share - because they earn 88.51% of AGI and pay 97.22% of all individual income taxes.

Even people who earn 36841 know intuitively that if the top 1% earn 19.04% of all AGI and pay 37.80% of all individual taxes that they are paying almost twice their fair share.

Which makes sense - because we have a progressive tax system.

But that whole - the rich don't pay their fair share - argument falls a bit flat on the ordinary voter (in my opinion).

And that is why so many people voted for Trump - a billionaire (306 electoral votes worth). Most people don't really resent the rich. They just wish that someday they will also be rich.

Just a thought.

Dean... Let 'er rip...

Of course, pulling on is acceptable. Encouraged, even.

"piling on" , natch

Here are some interesting statistics:

Trump still insists that he doesn't have to do as he claimed he would and hand over his tax returns.

Nor bother with laws against treason, nor emoluments.

Nor, indeed, with his job.

The top 1% earned 1.7 trillion and ALL individual income taxes collected was 1.23 trillion. So if the top 1% only paid 71.9% for the average tax rate (instead of the 27.08% they do pay) you could get 1% of tax filers to pay 100% of the total income taxes!

Easy peasy.

That would work - no problem.

"“One dollar, one vote” means “for every dollar you possess, you get one vote”.

I’ll let you “do the math” to figure out the rest."

Actually, since the poor spend a higher proportion of their cash on, well, staying alive, they don't get any dollar votes.

But dick doesn't mind: as long as it's his side reaming him, he's happy as larry being buttfucked, because he's so happy other people are getting it worse than him.

Talk about the politics of hate...

A chicken in every pot!

And - somebody else will pay all the taxes!

"The top 1% earned 1.7 trillion"

No they didn't.

How many cars did they produce? How many buildings did they build? How many lines of code did they write?

None of it.

They didn't earn that money, poor working people earned it and they stole it.

"A chicken in every pot!"

And you're the chicken, dick.

Or the chickendick.

I'm not sure what the quoting of income statistics is meant to indicate. If the implication is that the nebulously defined "rich" pay more dollars in tax than the "loafers" in the economy - no argument.

The issue that argument avoids is the impact of dollars paid on the people - "burden". In terms of the impact tax bills have on people, those with lower incomes are hit harder - dollar for dollar taxes in lower income groups take more of a drain than in higher income groups.

That's why a flat tax is such an asinine idea (well, that and the fact that it would destroy the economy).

But that whole – the rich don’t pay their fair share – argument falls a bit flat on the ordinary voter (in my opinion).

As dean says, RickA doesn't understand the concept of a regressive tax.

... the concept of a regressive tax.

That's the idea explaining why the right wing hate line about "people who don't pay any income tax" is so evil - it intentionally ignores the fact that they still pay all sorts of taxes as part of their life.

RickA's spiel above, and other line similar, boil down to one thing:" I'm more important than (fill in the speaker's favorite target) because I pay more in taxes."

Yet they follow it up by accusing others of playing class warfare. The day a libertarian with any sense of honesty, decency, or integrity shows up will be the day marking the end of the universe.

Or capitalism, either.

The man who owns 100 men makes more money than a man working for himself.

And you need wealth to own others.

re 42, if they want the poor to pay more taxes, they should pay them more.

Unlike the rich, who keep complaining about how if they earned more money, they'd be paying more in taxes, therefore there's "no incentive to 'earn' more", there's not a poor person alive who'd turn their nose up at more money if it put them into a higher paying bracket.

(and note that the biggest welfare queens are the wealthy, landed and the incorporated)

Just occurred to me. When trump held highlevel classified meetings in a private club dining room, it's put down as "His private club", but isn't it supposed to not be his now? He therefore held a classified meeting in a citizen's private club, open to the public.

IT DOESN'T BELONG TO TRUMPY DUMPTY, right???

For all the Alex Jonesing about the illuminati meeting up in secret locations to take over the world, he is really quiet about this secret meeting of international people for secret meetings in a private club...

How much wealth would these 1% types that RickA simply adores be able to accumulate if they had to actually EARN money? And how much could they accumulate if there were no other hard-working people earning the money that gets redistributed to the 1%?

But more to the point, if there were no infrastructure in society that made it possible for those working people to go to work and generate that wealth, how could those 1% types have a working class to feed off?

In other words, without the societal infrastructure, the wealthy wouldn't be able to become wealthy. Someone has to pay for the creation and upkeep of that infrastructure: Those who are getting the greatest concentration of benefit from it - the 1%.

The economic machine that is making the 1% wealthy comes with an accounts payable. The wealthy spend their time attempting to dodge this debt and foist it off on those who have much less political power by virtue of this entire construct, the poorer classes.

This accounts payable is paid for with taxes. The wealthy attempt to avoid their debt to society with false arguments that their tax obligations should be transferred to those who have not incurred this debt - because they never shared in the payoffs to that degree (and are actively prevented in doing so anyway).

This "tax fraud" is theft - grand theft.

America was never prosperous as when we had a top bracket tax rate of 70%. We need to restore our tax system.

"One dollar, one vote."

Are we talking about the money that flows into campaigns? You know, money=free speech and the more of it you have, the more influence you get to play around with? Pretty straight forward if you don't take it too literally, especially since corporations are people too.

Heads up Rick, there's a storm on the horizon and it's not about "class warfare" (talk about your out-dated talking points) -- unless maybe you're calling the antics of oligarchs 'warfare'.

I mean, it certainly looks like the Republicans have put party over country. Are you one of those little wind-up, culture warriors, Rick?

I meant "the more money you have, the more political power you're granted". The richest among us rule us. We live in an oligarchy.

I suffered momentary vertigo and nausea from all of Rick's hand waving.

You weren't the only one...

Brainstorms says "Someone has to pay for the creation and upkeep of that infrastructure: Those who are getting the greatest concentration of benefit from it – the 1%."

I agree with this.

What pays for the infrastructure - actual or societal.

Taxes.

The 1% earn roughly 1/5 of the AGI and pay roughly 2/5 of the taxes - or paid for roughly 2/5 of the societal infrastructure.

The top 50% paid for 97.22% of the societal infrastructure (at least in 2013).

To a certain extent, this debate is philosophical - what is government for?

To some - such as myself - it is for our country being defended, our borders being defended, and the rule of law.

Looked at from that point of view - is the 1% defended better than the bottom 50%?

In my opinion - no.

The entire country benefits from our defense - so that cost should be divided per capita.

Yet, 1.3 million tax filers are paying 40% of that cost while 69,000,000 tax filers are paying 2.78% of that cost.

Is that fair?

Not on a per capita basis.

But I can also see the argument that the rich benefit from the societal infrastructure more than the poor - it is true.

On the other hand - do you agree that the rich create wealth?

If every 1%'er fired all their employees and stopped working for one year - do you have any idea how many people that would effect? I actually don't know the answer - but I think that it reasonable to assume that many of the people making more than 428,000 are employers. I am not sure how to allocate employees at large companies like 3M over the many individuals making more than 428,000 in that company - but you get my point.

The rich do earn their money.

They earn it by giving jobs to others, to make products or offer services, and the profit from that labor. But so does the employee.

Do a mental exercise and pretend that all people making over 428,000 fired all their employees.

What would the lose of wages be to those fired?

What would the lose of tax revenue be to the local, state and federal governments?

How many local, state and federal employees would have to be fired as a result of the lower taxes paid?

Don't kid yourself.

Rich people make the world go around.

They get rich by paying as little as possible to get the most work from each employee.

This is actually a good thing and we all benefit from it.

For every job lost making buggy whips, we have created new jobs programming, making websites or building robots.

Many hate rich people - but I do not.

I wish I was rich - but I recognize the jobs the rich create, and maintain.

In turn - consumers spend their money buying stuff rich people had made. For example, some people buy Microsoft Office and Bill Gates makes money (via his stock). All the other stock holders make a little bit off that purchase also. It pays for Microsoft's rent of all its facilities and all its employees salaries and all its innovation and all its taxes.

If you double Microsoft's taxes, you merely cause Microsoft to charge more for software (or hardware) and they pass that cost along to the consumers.

Ultimately - all business taxes are paid for by the consumers (i.e. the individual tax filers).

So the 1% pay double their fair share of societal infrastructure, by paying almost twice their share of taxes for their share of adjusted gross income.

That is how I look at it.

Thoughts?

Blah blah blah, rich people so badly treated. Bloody whining bastards.

Weird thing,when it comes to unions, they're the devil incarnate because they make workers cost more, so any attempt to form one or to go on strike is faced with everyone bitching about how they're holding the wealth creators and the other workers to ransom.

But when it comes to rich people, though, they don't even have to threaten everyone with upping sticks, EVERYONE ELSE WILL MAKE THE THREAT FOR THEM.

Then pretend that this isn't being held to ransom, it's "just being sensible about money".

Thoughts? You spend a lot of words just to say "I'm special because i pay more taxes than the undesirables" and miss (intentionally, I'm sure) all the points made otherwise.

dean #53:

Thank you for your thought.

I was not actually trying to say I am special at all.

I am not a 1%'er.

I am not even a 5%'er.

But I do pay more taxes than most.

I do have employees and am a part-owner of a patent, trademark, copyright law firm.

As a small business owner, I know I need employees and I am very grateful for my employees.

That is why I pay them money and sometimes give them bonuses.

That is why I pay for their healthcare (100%) and contribute to their HSA.

That is why I offer a match for a 401(k).

That is why I offer profitsharing to my employees.

I am not special at all.

But like a lot of business owners - I pay myself, and I also pay several other employees to boot (as do each of my shareholders).

This is a service and a help to society.

In my opinion, of course.

No, but you want to be one. You don't want the ladder pulled up while you're still hopeful.

And as soon as you get rid of all those lefties, the proper action will be taken by the invisible hand of libertarianism and you will be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, as will everyone else who deserves it!

Because you're a psychopathic moron.

Ultimately – all business taxes are paid for by the consumers (i.e. the individual tax filers).

So we should applaud tax evasion by business?

But all taxes paid by people have to be covered by wages, which increases the cost to businesses, so you should not tax people.

So it should only tax wealth, not income, since that doesn't have to be paid for once accumulated.

"This is a service and a help to society."

That is true and not an opinion.

The other notions about tax percentage breakdown and relative importance is simply opinion, not fact.

BBD #56:

It is not tax evasion for a business to price its product to cover the materials that go into the product, the labor which goes into building it and the general and administrative expenses related (like rent, accounting and taxes).

For profit businesses even like to charge more than all that, to make a profit.

When your taxes go up, the cost of the product goes up - just as if your rent went up or labor went up or raw materials went up.

That is the nature of business.

All increases get passed along to the people buying the product.

Or you go bankrupt.

dean #58 says "The other notions about tax percentage breakdown and relative importance is simply opinion, not fact."

I certainly agree that the relative importance is opinion.

However, the tax percentage breakdown, relative to AGI are facts.

It is tax evasion to pay under the odds.

It's tax evasion to get the law changed so that your evasion is allowed.

It's tax evasion to live in a first world country but move your profits to a tax haven.

And you're 100% wrong about "all increases get passed along to the people buying the product", because it's sold at the level at which the market will bear, NOT the marginal cost.

How the hell do you think there's profit in there???? And how the hell do they manage to sell it elsewhere for less, hmm? Because elsewhere the market won't bear the cost of the first world prices.

But you worship at the Altar of Ayn Rand.

A worthless pile of vomit who moaned at everyone using welfare then leapt on it herself. Because hypocrisy is the watchword of libertarians.

And when the income taxes of the principals and shareholders goes up, that does NOT make the cost of any of the products & services go up, hence there is no justification for making the customers pay for that inconvenience...

Brainstorms #62:

True.

Only if the business taxes on the business itself go up does it affect the bottom line.

The personal tax rate paid by the employee, via W2 wages does not impact the business taxes (except that the W2 wages are a deduction - as are all wages).

So I agree with you.

Here is a personal income tax analogy.

If you make 100,000 gross income and pay:

20,000 federal taxes
4000 social security
3000 medicare
8000 state tax

You get to subtract those taxes (I am simplifying) to get to a taxable income of $65,000.

If your personal tax rate went up and you paid $25,000 in federal taxes on the same 100,000 of gross income, your taxable income drops to $60,000.

It works the same for businesses.

No, the tax rate paid by the executives,dick.

Increase their taxes. And the tax on wealth.

If you leave (or even cut) the tax of the poorest, then they won't need to be paid so much, reducing costs.

So have a generous allowance, then increasing percentages on income as it increases, and a high tax on both inheritance (if you have children and you haven't helped them to become independently wealthy by the time you die, then they were worthless and not worth the money, give it back to the government so they can give universal education and another person a chance at making big), and wealth (since wealth isn't going to have to be kept up to survive: it's already surplus income, otherwise it could not become wealth.

Gosh.

And then what you can do is increase the taxes on the PROFITS of corporations, in order to be able to cut the income taxes of the taxpayers. That won't affect the price of the product, either, since it's profit!

All increases get passed along to the people buying the product.

Or you go bankrupt.

No, you take less profit. And there's the elephant in ze room.

How about including the cost of food, rent and bills in that, dick?

Or do you think people should not eat?

How come those aren't tax deductible?

BBD #66:

Right - you are correct of course.

The question is when is it worth it to you to still make the product for your diminished profit.

For example, I doubt Apple would make and cell iPhones if they only made one penny profit per iPhone.

It just wouldn't be worth it.

That is a business decision, which will be made by millions of businesses.

Businesses stop making products all the time because they just don't make enough profit anymore.

Some margins are just to small to make it worthwhile.

"The question is when is it worth it to you to still make the product for your diminished profit."

It always, 100% ALWAYS is.

You see if you don't make anything, then you don't get paid ANYTHING. And you know that profit thing? That's after costs.Costs like, oh, your wages.

This rather clearly indicates why libertarians are rather accurately labelled libtards.

Because they're fucking retarded.

BBD:

If it costs $1,000,000 for a taxi medallion in New York city, how much does the owner have to make before they are making money on that taxi (not even counting gas, repairs and wages)?

$1,000,000

How much more goes into the pocket of the driver, for the same $1,000,000 worth of trips - if they don't need a medallion?

$1,000,000

Ouch - no wonder taxi medallions are being sold on ebay for $250,000 today.

Bad for New York City.

Good for the individuals income however.

RickA, those numbers do not accurately reflect individual income taxes paid by the rich, for two primary reasons:
1) S corps are paid under individual income tax.
2) The wealthy changes from year to year at the top. People can sell their businesses or other property and temporarily be in the top 1%.

Yeah, right. Lots of jobs in the taxi industry, and they're really able to dodge taxes...

Tell you what, lets just make it free. Then we're able to increase corporate taxes by, oh, 30%.

RickA

The question is when is it worth it to you to still make the product for your diminished profit.

For example, I doubt Apple would make and cell iPhones if they only made one penny profit per iPhone.

It just wouldn’t be worth it.

You are doing it again. Less profit != bankruptcy

Less profit != shut up shop

Rhetoric etc.

Washington (CNN) - President Donald Trump signed a measure Thursday that rolls back a last-minute Obama administration rule aimed at stopping the coal mining industry from dumping waste into nearby waterways.

It is the first of what is expected to be many environmental regulation rollbacks sent to his desk by Congress.

Because...profits.

₵unt$.

MikeN:

I completely agree.

The "rich" would not make 100,000 of W2 income.

Also, of course incomes vary year to year.

The data I posted was only for the 2013 tax year.

The "rich" S-Corp owners get to set their salary at a "reasonable" level - which the IRS looks at closely.

That portion of their salary is W2 and they pay social security and medicare on it.

The rest of their profit can be paid out as dividend income, which is taxed at 20% for taxpayers paying the top rate of 39.6%.

So the "rich" would pay a higher overall rate than the 20% I used in my example - a blended rate of 39.6% for W2 and 20% for the dividend portion.

The major advantage of S-corps is that on the dividend portion they don't have to pay social security and medicare taxes.

I am sure you knew all this - but I thought the others might not know the reason small business owners like S-corps.

Corey #74:

Not a big setback.

In order to be rolled back, the rule had to go into effect less than 60 days ago - so corporations could dump waste all the way through the Obama admin up until 60 days ago.

I guess it was ok before then?

Or else why did Obama wait until the waning days of his administration to put the rule into force.

Ricky,

So you're justifying the reversal by asking, "What took so long?"

Trash.

(ClimateBrawl™ : Anything less would be consent.)

Not dividends. For S Corp, the corporate income tax is paid directly as personal income tax with those rates.

Greg- 1] gerry mandering and the rural dominated senate pretty much locks out dems for quite awhile - but the tea party MAY have taught them about the need for an incessant drumbeat of local activism. we shall see. But there was a relatively IMHO for the dems to have at least gained the presidency- the merely had to get out in front of the whole cannabis legalization issue- the election hinged on a relatively small amount of mostly young white voters who switched from Obama to Djt... simply to have supported a narionwide legalization effort [ 60% support in polls] likely would have swung it- but no! that would have required OMG a tiny risk. My informal "poll" suggests that millenials sat out in large part because they saw dems as merely spineless pro pols who inevitably stood only for what was a safe way into power.... sure- many of us saw the approaching Bloatorange Hindenburg headed towards us as reason to vote but but damn near as many just shrugged... and not even an apology from the DNC... thanks for nothing ...

MikeN #79:

I do know that S corporations are pass through for the owner salary portion - so I agree with you that the W2 wages paid are taxed at the individual tax rate.

But it is my understanding that the salary only needs to be reasonable - and that one of the advantages of an S-corp is that you can take other S-corp profit as a distribution, which is not W2 salary and so that portion avoids payroll taxes, such as social security and medicare.

The distribution portion is taxed as a dividend.

So if 100k is deemed "reasonable" an owner could set their W2 wages at 100k and pay themselves another 100k as a distribution, which would not be W2 wages.

But I am not a tax lawyer - only a patent lawyer, so I could be wrong.

That is what my latest CLE (continuing legal education) course taught me about S-corps.

"But I am not a tax lawyer – only a patent lawyer"

Yeah, right.

You haven't even been to law school.

Night course at Trump Uni?

'as a dividend'. If you mean taxed like a dividend, perhaps. All of the corporate income gets taxed as personal income.

There is no requirement that the money gets passed out to shareholders at all. Frequently, the company will only distribute enough to pay the taxes.

Great Post