Vice President Kamala Harris will propose a tax deduction of up to $50,000 for new small businesses on Wednesday, a tenfold increase over existing relief and her latest economic policy aimed at winning over middle-class Americans after jumping into the presidential race over a month ago.
You know what would really help small businesses, like a lot? Public health insurance (covering things like vision and dental). A huge part of the cost of doing business is benefits for employees. Well, with public health insurance that’s a huge budget item that suddenly small businesses don’t have to pay.
Want to make it better? Expand social security to be something you could live off of. Boom, now you as a small business owner don’t need benefits like 401ks. Your employees will be well taken care of by a government ran pension.
Want to go a step further? Expand public housing, public transport, and food security programs. Now all the sudden a business doesn’t need to pay top dollar because the cost of living for everyone has been significantly decreased. You can easily find low wage workers and hire crews of them because the added income for everyone is more of a bonus rather than a necessity.
What else could you do? Reduce the full time work week from 40 hours to 30 hours. For a small business, it means you can actually focus on having your employees doing useful work rather than having them hang around an extra 10 hours a week doing nothing. For the employees, now they have spare time on their hands which means more opportunities to interact with the community and small businesses.
By taking care of the basic needs of the population you give the population a lot of spare capital and time. All of which can stimulate the economy to new heights.
Of course all of these things would be nice, but I just don’t think it’s an electable platform in 2024.
It’s not based in reality, but the “biden broke the ecomony” narrative has a lot of traction.
This type of policy would lose more votes than it would win.
Dam, you both sound right. And that’s some sad shit to realize.
We can both be right. My goal is showing how appealing government spending can be and is generally. The more people thinking this way, the more palatable “you know what, maybe we should have a 1000% tax on private jet and yacht fuel”.
Raising taxes on multimillionaires/billionaires should be a lot more popular than it currently is.
We can both be right.
I chuckled a little when I read that: “Thats not how social media is supposed to work…”
I was supposed to get popcorn, and you two were supposed to fight it out over the next 12 hours arguing about the same thing without realizing it. Pfft. There went my entertainment.
(Obviously, I jest.)
Lol, I try to be reasonable. I know my positions aren’t generally popular which is why I’m not saying Kamala should campaign on them. But I could see them working quite well for a congressional or Senate seat.
Ironically, progressive positions do often play well in deep red states. It’s centrist Democrats that have a tendency to outright reject them.
That’s because half the population actually believes they’ll be as rich as those high tax brackets (which will never happen).
And there’s unregulated messaging forcing that down their throat both from foreign and national interests that benefit from them voting against their interests.
It’s not just sad, it’s one of the fundamental problems of our time. There are all of these obvious good things that government could and should be doing, but because they seem scary and revolutionary, the Democratic party is afraid (perhaps rightly so) that if that try to do them, they will lose to the Republicans. Then, people get upset that the government isn’t doing enough and seems stagnant, and that’s why candidates who seem disruptive get more attention.
On the good side of that equation, you get Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who became much more successful than one would think on paper, because they branded themselves as Change candidates. The dark side of that is Trump, who appeals to people who think he seems not like a normal politician, and probably to a fair number of accelerationists, too. Obviously if you think about it for thirty seconds you can see that Trump is a fucking con man first, middle, and last, but the outsider branding might be his most potent tool.
Democrats have got to acknowledge that anger at the system feeling fucked, and they have got to make real changes to noticeably improve people’s lives. If all they do is try to maintain institutions and return to the pre-Trump status quo, then the fascists who want to set fire to everything are going to have that advantage over them.
Agreed. We should stick to the public healthcare first, and revisit others in 15-20 years.
I’m kind of surprised public healthcare hasn’t already been pitched in this way. Hell, that $50k should be a medicare credit.
15-20 years??
How about revisit in 5-8 years.
Yeah, probably. You know what’s not going to pass congress? Any of that.
Republicans and exactly enough Democrats will see to that, yes.
You know what would really help small businesses, like a lot? Public health insurance (covering things like vision and dental). A huge part of the cost of doing business is benefits for employees. Well, with public health insurance that’s a huge budget item that suddenly small businesses don’t have to pay.
It would massively help the creation of small businesses, too, by massively reducing the cost/risk faced by entrepreneurs.
Nailed it.
Interesting incentive move. I immediately wonder how people are going to exploit it, though I don’t believe the potential for abuse should dissuade an attempt at progress.
open business, close business, open new business, repeat, but they are all the same
A deduction isn’t a handout. You don’t get free money you didn’t already earn.
Yeah, if this was a credit that’d be a different story and very ripe for exploitation. However, a deduction is still quite a bit of money to reduce your taxable income by.
my comment implies there was already a business or a business to be made, and closing and reopen was a metod to game system for 50k deduction, hence less taxes, each time this is done
If your business is doing so poorly that deducting a single person’s wage for the first year is worth that effort then…I guess yeah. Game away.
I see you’re unfamiliar with small businesses
No, I’m not. That’s the thing. I know that a very small business (sub five employees) lives and dies by word of mouth and repeat business. Something that closing down and becoming another business with another name (even a derivative) will absolutely kill. On top of the IRS very likely having protections against this very scenario, starting a new business with a new license, and a new name, a new logo, and a new bank account, insurance, and a new domain name probably (in which case, software, accounts, POS, would be tied to the wrong domain email which is embarrassing if it’s not changeable), and does it need permits? They’re new too. Did you have an LLC? Lawyer fees and processing and time. All to save $50k in taxes which likely weren’t terrible if you’re that small.
It’s basically like starting a game of Civ or something similar and adjusting everything in the custom gameplay mode to make a few things a little easier in game. And then you get a few hours of playing in and realize you borked the game and would rather play a typical campaign.
You just use the same phone numbers and accounts and stuff. There’s been standard ways to redirect people to new names for at least centuries.
It costs a couple hundred bucks to start a new llc in most states. People just use their old articles of incorporation and change the names (I know one who just crossed the old ones out with a pen and wrote the new ones in over the top).
Permitting almost always has exceptions for existing operations.
When you close a business on paper you don’t suddenly lose access to services in the name of that business.
If you can figure out a good reason to (any reason counts, restructuring, etc) you can have the same dba filing for your new company, not change anything externally and be fine.
What you’re not considering is that all of the above things might amount to five grand if you live in a particularly restrictive state, but that’s still 45k in tax breaks a year and if there was some reason to restructure internally now you’re getting paid for it.
My [likely ignorant] take is that we need better incentives for workers, renters, and first-time homeowners, not MBA
shysters“entrepreneurs” creating “new businesses” dropshipping imported garbage and other ventures that add little value to society.Tf are you on about? You realize that a huge chunk of small business owners are middle class, right? Hell, many of them are barely holding on at all. My wife is a social worker and started her own “business” this year, which is just a small office she rents so she has a safe place to meet her clients. I promise you we are far from being wealthy. Don’t confuse small business as being riddled with millionaires and billionaires, because that’s just complete nonsense.
I assumed they were pointing out how small business tax breaks can be taken advantage of by those wealthy types pretending to be people like your wife. On the other hand, benefits to workers, renters and first time home-owners can’t be exploited as simply and would benefit your wife just the same. But if I’m wrong then, yea, I agree with you 100%.
It’s lemmy. Most people don’t get a small business is often tradesmen, the local restaurant down the street or that weird quirky store in your neighborhood.
They’re also the ones struggling hard right now. I’m no fan of Harris but based on the limited article, I support the idea.
We need to make it easier for the average person to start a business and have some prosperity.
I seek out small locally owned businesses as often as I can.
Starting your own business should not be the best or only vehicle to prosperity. You should be able to make a comfortable living working a normal job that doesn’t break you.
Failure rate of small business is high, and you can’t blame all of that on lack of startup capital. Bad concept, bad execution, bad location, etc. could all play into it. The taxpayer should not be obliged to keep a “quirky” store running if it doesn’t bring in customers. Throwing good money after bad isn’t going to bring prosperity to anyone in the end.
Not to mention that they compete with each other, not just the megacorps. I’m pretty sure there are half a dozen hair salons on our main street alone, and most of them sit empty at any given time, endlessly changing hands. Incentivizing startups will only make competition more fierce, so a few more winners but much more losers.
We don’t need more restaurants giving the community more below minimum wage jobs that can’t be filled. We need that money helping everyone, with rent or groceries or something, so that they can actually have money to spend at the small businesses that exist.
You’re ignoring the fundamentals of economy by hand waving away all the other types of small businesses and only focusing on the most obvious targets to justify your argument. Construction, legal, retail, medical, mechanical, etc. all make a community even possible. And this benefit is a deduction, not a credit, so taxpayers aren’t directly paying anything for this benefit.
Look, I’m not disagreeing with you that everyone needs help. I completely agree. I’m also not going to defend all small businesses as being a good thing by default, because there are lots of shitty local places that pay and treat their staff awfully. But I think this is a simple win to allow average people to pursue their goals in business if they want to and make it just a little bit easier for them.
Fixing rent, grocery costs, healthcare, worker salaries, etc is far more complex than simply giving a tax deduction.
Real weird that people don’t seem to get that competition from small, local businesses is what we want to end the corporate grip on our lives. Millionaires get venture capital loans, not $50k small business loans.
Yeah, it doesn’t make much sense. Big corpos use shell companies to completely evade tax obligations (e.g. Google, Apple, etc), not get a measly $50k deduction off their enormous profits.
I honestly couldn’t care less about middle class. They’re comfortable. I’m not. Therefore, they don’t need help…
Supporting the middle class creates ways for people to move into the middle class from poverty.
Yikes at the strikeout word
A lot of people do not know the racist connotation of that word. I used to use it all the time until I found out it is antisemitic!
It is? Like I’m honestly interested as an etymology nerd, but I can’t seem to find anything that directly ties this to antisemitism other than a vague “idk it might be.”
What I see is some people claiming it comes from either a historical sense of “shy” meaning disreputable, or the German word Scheißer, meaning shitter.
You may be right! law.com found the same. I had heard the shylock part, and often time Jewish people are demonized as unscrupulous lawyers and bankers, so it made sense. I’m not sure now… I think I’ll avoid it still to keep people comfortable, even if it is a fun word to say…
They way I understood it from the '70s until today was the German shiiters meaning, or bullshitters. Liars, cheats, scammers. Our family has a strong and recent German heritage and connection still, there are some original German speakers in the family still living. So maybe a translation bias.
If she wins and she does this, I will open my own business. I’ve been on the fence for months about it, this is enough to pull it off. I look forward to a future with her as our President.
I will never understand how politicians crow about how small businesses and entrepreneurship are what the US needs and then simultaneously complain that there’s a shortage of workers. Maybe not every business is inherently virtuous simply by existing, and if there aren’t enough workers, that could mean there are too many businesses.
One of the best ways someone can make a good living for themselves is to run their own business. Not that it’s for everyone, but being in the driver’s seat of your own income instead of depending on someone else for a wage is very much the definition of American individualism, even if an individual is simply contracting for a larger firm.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a shortage of workers, but I think there’s a shortage of people willing to work for the peanuts these conglomerates are offering. Competition is severely hampered when large firms corner their respective markets and drive out smaller competitors, because now they are the ones in charge of the respective workforces and are calling the shots, including how much an individual is allowed to make. Smaller firms with lower overhead are able to disrupt them, as long as the playing field is level and the barriers aren’t the Dover cliffs.
And then think that somehow their business will become Wal-Mart, which has actually priced likely them and most other small businesses in their area out of competing.
The businesses that are most successful in my area that have lasted over the last 5 years are intelligent, humble, and treat their employees very well.
- They’ve opened in places that make great sense for them location wise
- They only participate in marketing, events, etc when it provides a real benefit
- The owners spend real time and energy at the business and events, participating in the community
- The employees are paid well, provided for (I mean benefits, not just pats on the back), and have opportunities for advancement as the business grows
These businesses deserve a tax deduction to me.
The type of people with shit shill companies to put their debt on or because they post a lot on social media about “hard knocks university” and their instagram is full of shit they bought on a business loan but never about what their business does and the work they do deserve to fail;
These people deserve the “limited” in “limited liability company” to come full circle. Unfortunately the second group is a significant amount of people that will vote for trump because they consider themselves “entrepreneurs”
It seems like you are conflating statements made by completely different groups of people? Has Harris mentioned a lack of workers?
Why don’t we stop jerking off businesses with both hands and start helping workers?
The fucking petite bourgeoisie get more than enough from the govt teat as it is.
With this you could use to help start a co-op and start helping workers.
Why don’t we stop jerking off businesses with both hands and start helping workers?
Because workers don’t have a strong outside organization to lobby officials for their benefit. You’d need some kind of… uh… I know there’s a word for this. Big Worker Group. Like, a Wad of Workers, where they’re all together making demands as a single bargaining unit. An amalgamation of people in a given office or sector of the economy.
Damn, I know there’s a word.
Wad of Workers, sign me up.
We don’t need more small businesses. We need less corporations, less ultra wealthy and more healthy middle class. This does not solve anything and a one time tax deduction doesn’t make small businesses sustainable when they have to compete against corpos.
Having more small businesses is how you get less corporations and a healthier middle class… there’s a ton of great incentives for small businesses already, but the hardest part is the initialization and the first year. This makes that way easier. This is a good idea, you just have a bad view.
Having more small businesses is how you get less corporations and a healthier middle class
Except when the corporations just buy the small business. This is the big problem with breaking into an industry. If you do find a way to break in, then one of the larger guys will just buy you out or force you out. Facebook bought Insta for the sole reason to reduce competition. Meta bought them out at $1B, which was huge for a small business buyout. Post-Meta, Insta is now estimated to be worth $100B Literally a penny on the dollar for the buyout. Meta also bought out WhatsApp at $19B, currently estimated to be $109B worth today. Like things that are regular names at this point were once small businesses that were serious threats to larger companies. Meta’s Messenger was under serious threat by WhatsApp prior to the buy out.
And sometimes the point is to just get rid of the business altogether. Microsoft bought out Wunderlist for the sole reason to kill off the app. Google bought out Waze and has constantly been keeping them just functioning, but in 2020 the FTC launched yet another investigation into Google over Waze.
Small businesses won’t thrive without restricting some of the anti-competitive behavior of the larger corporations.
Those companies were all worth millions by that point. I completely agree about splitting monopolies, but y’all are willing to sacrifice the common man (the people you’re closest to in class) simply because maybe, possibly, potentially they could be bought out by a major monopoly rather than the real helpful to the middle/lower class which is helping them get started and building their own wealth.
No, you have a point and I wrote that oddly. I’m not saying we can only have one or the other. But yeah, my comment makes it sound like we can’t do helping small businesses without first taking care of large corporations. We can have both things happening.
That’s on me, I wasn’t entirely clear in that comment. We can have the small business help and that would provide benefit to small businesses. But small businesses won’t thrive until we ease up the grip that particular companies have on select industries.
I appreciate you recognizing that it was worded wrong, or how someone could interpret it that way.
My problem with the original comment I replied to was more this idea that we should be breaking down big businesses (which we should) rather than focusing our efforts on building up small businesses. My wife and I have talked about opening up a book store (I don’t read, but my wife does and she’s passionate about it [200 books a year on average!]) and going from 10 to 50,000 first year support would make that leap from our comfortable finance management position for her to being a business owner. So for me I see how this personally impacts the every man and how it benefits us (and me) as a whole. Plus, as is often the case, people get so caught up in the details of things these days that we end up taking more time and spending more money/energy in the first place.
Thank you. I can’t believe there are multiple comments in this thread hating on small businesses and somehow justifying that as them being anti-corpo/wealthy elite. We need less Walmart/Amazon/etc and more smaller, locally owned and run businesses.
Even better just require all businesses to have a union or coop democratic structure when expanded beyond one employee. Fix the problem from the beginning. All employees should have equal voice. CEO one vote, delivery truck driver one vote. For all companies large and small.
You and @[email protected] are both right.
On one side, helping small business get started is good.
The other side, breaking up monopolies and market manipulators is also needed.The default for acquisitions should be no. Too many large companies buying small companies.
Many small businesses fail in the first year due to taking on necessary costs before clients/ customers are well established. Getting through that period would make businesses more sustainable.
Well it sure beats getting your taxes raised just to give the rich another cut. This can actually help me out as I’m working to start a small shop here in Detroit. $50k is the cost of a good used CNC lathe.
more businesses could facilitate more work, right?
I’m curious as to how people will scam this like they did the PPP loans.
That’s not what we need. We need government caps on goods, services, fees, interest rates, personal worth (billionaires), and housing.
Artificial price caps just disincentivize people from creating more of that good. They don’t solve the underlying problem at all. You just replace people paying more with widespread shortages and people not having it at all.
The goal to reduce prices to increase supply—incentivize people to create more of those things cheaper somehow.
You sound like you’ve been tricked by the capitalism machine. “Give me a reason to do the right thing”
Call it pessimistic, but if your society relies on building many, many more houses out of the goodness of their hearts, you’re going to have a bad time.
Our society, to be clear. Global problem. And, you’re absolutely right: we are having a bad time.
