Don Pfau
Dedicated LVC Member
Well I looked at it and do not see any were stated that its based on gross income? And Yes Mitts income is not all Capital Gains but it is still a lower total percent than I have paid.
Twelve reasons
- Thread starter cammerfe
- Start date
It is based on TAX RETURNS. By their very nature, that is going to be gross (pre-tax) income as well as net (post-tax) income.
I highly doubt that. If so, I would suggest getting someone else to do your taxes.
From Pethokoukis' article:
Romney’s effective tax rate is around 15 percent. Even including payroll taxes, Romney pays a higher effective tax rate than 60 percent of Americans.
If you are in the upper 40% of earners, then congratulations.
Don Pfau
Dedicated LVC Member
Good God how can somebody who appears smart be so stupid. I through talking to you. Life is to short. I truly hope you are never in any position of power and you must be related to Rush Limbaugh. I'll pray that you be granted some empathy for the working poor or become one if thats what it takes. Good Bye.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
A very wise man once told me that, "What somebody else makes in the way of money never takes anything out of my pocket or puts anything in."
All of this drivel is only a textbook example of class envy. "I'm jealous of you so I'm going to do whatever I can to pull you down."
Get a life, Don!!
KS
All of this drivel is only a textbook example of class envy. "I'm jealous of you so I'm going to do whatever I can to pull you down."
Get a life, Don!!
KS
Don - don't worry about shag - he uses the 'wall of text' style of debate...
Just take one of the things he seem to use as 'substance' in his argument...
How about
I fall within that approximately 40% area where I pay a higher effective tax rate than Mittens does.
Personally - I think that sucks. I would think that anyone that falls within that 40% (which is far more than you would think Shag - I bet there are a whole lot of people who post on this board who are in that 40%) would have to agree. Why should a man who made, what, 54 million dollars in the last 2 years pay a lower rate than I do? (That 40% means that your family's income is approximately $65,000 or more a year, if you are in the top .1% you make over 1.8 million a year).
Because he invests his 'capital' he should pay less than I who invest my 'time' at a job? When did America decide that 'work' is basically less valuable (because we tax it at a higher rate, so you get to keep less of your money if it is ordinary income) than 'investment'?
Because that is what is basically being said here - good old fashioned 'work' has been devalued in this country, while vulture capitalism has been elevated.
I think my 'work' is as valuable as Mitten's 'investment'. Some will claim that his 'risk' is greater. Really? He is risking his money. A fireman risks his life, his health, however, the fireman's 'work' is taxed at a higher rate. I believe that the fireman's risks outweighs Romney's. In fact there are lots of 'risks' in many of our jobs... why should risking 'money' be elevated to some higher status?
Just take one of the things he seem to use as 'substance' in his argument...
How about
Romney’s effective tax rate is around 15 percent. Even including payroll taxes, Romney pays a higher effective tax rate than 60 percent of Americans.
However, Romney makes more money than 99.99% of Americans.I fall within that approximately 40% area where I pay a higher effective tax rate than Mittens does.
Personally - I think that sucks. I would think that anyone that falls within that 40% (which is far more than you would think Shag - I bet there are a whole lot of people who post on this board who are in that 40%) would have to agree. Why should a man who made, what, 54 million dollars in the last 2 years pay a lower rate than I do? (That 40% means that your family's income is approximately $65,000 or more a year, if you are in the top .1% you make over 1.8 million a year).
Because he invests his 'capital' he should pay less than I who invest my 'time' at a job? When did America decide that 'work' is basically less valuable (because we tax it at a higher rate, so you get to keep less of your money if it is ordinary income) than 'investment'?
Because that is what is basically being said here - good old fashioned 'work' has been devalued in this country, while vulture capitalism has been elevated.
I think my 'work' is as valuable as Mitten's 'investment'. Some will claim that his 'risk' is greater. Really? He is risking his money. A fireman risks his life, his health, however, the fireman's 'work' is taxed at a higher rate. I believe that the fireman's risks outweighs Romney's. In fact there are lots of 'risks' in many of our jobs... why should risking 'money' be elevated to some higher status?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
No, no, sweets. The reason to have a lower interest rate on some things is, first of all, there has already been a big bite taken the first time around, and second, that having the lower rate is an incentive to do the investing.
Leave us not have any of this class warfare b u l l s h i t.
KS
Leave us not have any of this class warfare b u l l s h i t.
KS
And a higher rate is conducive to working?
You really believe that the money I am getting paid hasn't had taxes paid on it? The people who buy our goods pay taxes on the money they are using to purchase our goods, which in turn is how my company pays me... Then I pay taxes on that...
As the rich hold onto their 'class' and their 'privilege' you better believe it is about class warfare
You really believe that the money I am getting paid hasn't had taxes paid on it? The people who buy our goods pay taxes on the money they are using to purchase our goods, which in turn is how my company pays me... Then I pay taxes on that...
As the rich hold onto their 'class' and their 'privilege' you better believe it is about class warfare
Foxy,
Can you explain why capital gains rates are lower then income tax? There is a specific reason for it (and it is not simply the double taxation angle).
Instead of class warfare boilerplate and false equivalence, can you actually confront that reason and give an argument (sanctimony is not an argument) why the capital gains rate tax should be determined on a different basis?
Do you agree that we should grow our way out of the recession?
Do you agree with the Right to property?
Can you explain why capital gains rates are lower then income tax? There is a specific reason for it (and it is not simply the double taxation angle).
Instead of class warfare boilerplate and false equivalence, can you actually confront that reason and give an argument (sanctimony is not an argument) why the capital gains rate tax should be determined on a different basis?
Do you agree that we should grow our way out of the recession?
Do you agree with the Right to property?
Defending class warfare speaks more to the intellectual bankruptcy of the defender then it does to any genuine problems in our system.
I have already pointed out how it is based on certain flawed assumptions
- Labor Theory of Value
- Zero Sum economy
- It ignores the effects of increased supply on prices and living standards
Any use of class warfare is either rooted in ignorance or (more often) an attempt to deceive. Politicians stoking envy through class warfare are, almost always, the ones most exploiting the taxpayer (and their power) for personal gain; engaging in the very corporatism they decry out the other side of their mouth.
Don Pfau
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry Had to reply. There is absolutely no sane logic to explain how the wealthy have available a tax rate as low or lower then the poorest working Americans have to pay from the first dollar they make. So how about putting a deductible amount on SS and raise the amount of income that pays into it to make up the difference. It is inefficient to tax poor people and then turn around and help pay to support them. Let them keep the tax and then reduce government. And that would fix the first point. Or lower the SS tax rate and raise the amount of income that pays into it again to equal. The other day when I was trying to reply to you, my computer was dying and probably 5 time I had a reply over half way done and the computer shut down and I had to start all over. One time I had just closed the spell check was ready to hit submit and it died. I had put more into that one than any other. So after that I tried to get them out fast and tried to keep them short and of course it added to my frustration level. I say one shagdrum, we may disagree on some things but you have been a gentleman.
We live in a competitive society where pay is generally tied to the value of the work and most importantly the profitable accomplishment and not how hard one works but how smart one works.
If you don't accomplish much and/or create a profit but merely burn up money living there isn't any great value but cost to society.
The money one spends merely paying for one's living is not any kind of capital accomplishment that creates value but a consumption with no return on the investment.
Capital gains are taxed low because there is 100% risk to this type of spending investing for longer than 1 year that accomplishes things and brings a return on investment beyond mere money.
Lasting value is worth more than the cost of someones living which is why the different tax rate.
Also at perhaps 200,000 individuals there aren't enough rich people to pay the costs of further subsidizing the 150 million middle and working class people who already get 92% of the tax breaks for mortgage interest, health care, education etc to the point where a family of 4 with 50k in income pays 700.00 in federal income tax.
You have to get the lion's share of the money from the 150 million regular people who don't provide real capital gain that adds value and accomplishment to the society beyond the cost of living.
They are the ones who need the services, the rich don't.
As it is the 150 million got 3 trillion out of the 4 trillion Bush tax cuts over 10 years without any accomplishments on their parts.
And Obama has further eroded the tax base with more "relief" for the middle class.
Our society rewards the talented and accomplished.
That is what is "fair"
1000 times more valuable?
Look at how much we pay athletes for essentially entertainment of no capital or lasting real value yet the business model is very profitable.
We pay a lot more for talent and accomplishment but only what the market will bear for labor work per se.
It's the way of human nature in this competitive life where talent and intellect rule and mortality is the only real equalizer.
I have yet to see any evidence that is true. In fact, everything I have seen suggests otherwise.
Since your argument is premised on that assumption, it would be well worth taking the time to find evidence to back it up.
WOW. There is a first on this forum.
Just wait, if Foxy and I get going around like the old days it can get VERY contentious.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The incentive structure angle that can't be forgotten. If capital gains are taxed at the same rate as labor income, there is little to no incentive to invest and the economy grows stagnant.
Whether it is a laborer investing in a 401k or an independently wealthy person, if there is no tax incentive to offset the risk involved why take the risk?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
The reason we saw a surplus in the 1990's was because the capital gains rate was lowered creating a massive incentive for investment which magnified the tech boom.
Don Pfau
Dedicated LVC Member
Again How can you be so smart yet so &$%^#*. Capital gains tax rate is 15%on taxable income not actual earnings. And while were on the subject some loop holes get deducted from the gross so they are not deductions. Also I do not believe your tax chart was gross. Every tax chart I've seen if it is labeled it says taxable income and unless you can prove it different there is no reason to just except your word. WORKING CLASS WORKERS PAY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE IN SS ON THERE GROSS THAN THE PERCENTAGE SOME WEALTHY PAY ON THEIR GROSS ON MILLIONS TO BILLIONS IN CAPITAL GAINS AND SS. You can deny it all you want. Its just a simple tax deduction and math problem. And of course I can not produce such a return, they are protected. Plus those that have managed to do this would never voluntarily release their returns. And its ludicrous of you to expect me to produce them. The saddest part to me I know your smart enough to know this is true and yet your ideology wont let you admit it. I full understand that capital gains are at risk and should be lower than the general rate.
Another broader incentive factor is the area of savings.
Any REAL economic growth starts with savings (otherwise, we end up with a series of bubbles).
Taxing capital gains discourages savings. So we lower interest rates to simulate mal-investment that turns into a bubble and eventually bursts.
Any REAL economic growth starts with savings (otherwise, we end up with a series of bubbles).
Taxing capital gains discourages savings. So we lower interest rates to simulate mal-investment that turns into a bubble and eventually bursts.
The reason SS is capped at 106k is to keep it fair to everybody.
If I had to pay in 10 times the amount of the maximum to get the same benefit everyone gets that would be a ripoff.
SS is equality in the strictest sense.
On the other hand Medicare is fully taxed on your whole income so some of us do pay the full cost of this program vs the only 1/3 the average worker contributes towards the cost of care likely though not certainly needed for him/her when the time comes.
People say they have paid in all their lives and deserve care for life but due to ignorance of economics and political Moral Hazard expect the government to cover the other 2/3rds.
What's ethical about expecting others to pay your 2/3rds of the costs.
This is what Moral Hazard of political promises combined with lazy wishful thinking does and is the soft human weakness at the heart of our situation.
People don't want to hear we have a serious problem and success is unlikely without casualties and sacrifice and that some will live and others die.
Capital gains are not earnings?
ALL deductions are taken from the gross income to arrive at your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).
A "loop hole" IS a deduction. The only distinctions between them are subjective personal views, not objective legal ones.
Again, it is based on actual IRS tax filings. I spelled out as much in post #22.
If you apply any deductions it will be apparent on in your tax filings. Gross income and AGI are included in those filings.
Is there a point you are trying to make here? Because it is not very clear.
Are you referring to gross income as in "income before any deductions"? If the original point of reference is Buffet's article, then you are mistaken because Buffet was referring to his taxable income which is AGI and which is including in every table I have cited.
I never denied it. I recognized it as simply an irrelevant red herring in the grand scheme of things.
If you want to talk about JUST the SS tax, then yes the rich do pay a smaller percentage if you want to look at it that way.
But why is it somehow more valid to look at the issue from the standpoint of percentage of income? Income earning rich pay at least as much as anyone else to SS in actual monetary terms. Looking at the issue only as a percentage of income hides that fact. It does superficially justify emotionally gratifying moral indignation, but that is hardly a basis for policy.
Real world consequences are always more valid then abstract statistical categories.
There is a very good reason for the current SS structure. An article I linked to on Buffet earlier in this thread made the point best:
Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).
Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).
That passage spells out the half-truths Buffet is touting, the true reasoning behind the SS tax and the consequences of expanding the scope of that tax.Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).
I never expected you to. I was simply noting your claim in comparison to the effective tax rates for the various income groups from that chart.
Again, what ideology is that?
If you are attributing a philosophy to me, you need to make it VERY clear. Simply chastising me for something I can't defend myself against is rude. Also, how do you know that what you attribute to me is accurate. Economics and ideology are two of the most misconstrued things in political discourse today. In order to have a productive conservation, we need to be on the same page and that can't happen unless you specifically explain what philosophy you are attributing to me.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Howdy 04---
The hardest working guy I know uses a shovel and makes sure the ditches don't back up.
Foxy and all the other Che followers would seem to suggest that the ditch-digging is fully equal to doing Alan Mulally's job.
KS
The hardest working guy I know uses a shovel and makes sure the ditches don't back up.
Foxy and all the other Che followers would seem to suggest that the ditch-digging is fully equal to doing Alan Mulally's job.
KS
I am still amazed at how the wealthy has hoodwinked America...
So, shag, we have a couple of avenues to go down if you want to know why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.
The main justification is to incentivize people to make long-term investments, which foolishly some think encourage economic growth.
The other reason is because of inflation.
Two reasons for taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income. One, the current system penalizes work. Do you really think that penalizing work is a good idea Shag?
Secondly - the whole 'already taxed' argument is moot. Say you earned $1,000 at your job. You invest $400 in the market. You make $200 off that investment (you sell it for $600). Why shouldn't you pay the same tax rate that you did on your $1,000 earned income? That $200 isn't 'money' that you have paid taxes on already (you have only paid taxes on the $400 that you invested). It spends no differently than the $1000 you earned at your job. You invested time in your job, maybe sweat and physical risk. Why do we reward investing money more than we reward work? If you bet on a horse and won $200 that would be taxed as ordinary income.
And why should the government always tax capital gains at a lower rate - Clinton lowered it from 28% to 20% in '97 - however, within 3 years the economy was already downturning. Bush continued the trend lowering it to 15% in 2003 - and that didn't do anything either.
There is a false assumption that lowering capital gain taxes will create economic gain, however, the people who invest have been shown they will invest pretty much the same at Reagan's rate of 28% or Bush's rate of 15%.
I think we shouldn't 'create classes' because of the type of income that you earn - pay 18% on anything and everything - from selling puppies to dealing in overnight commodities. Income is income. Period.
So, shag, we have a couple of avenues to go down if you want to know why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.
The main justification is to incentivize people to make long-term investments, which foolishly some think encourage economic growth.
The other reason is because of inflation.
Two reasons for taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income. One, the current system penalizes work. Do you really think that penalizing work is a good idea Shag?
Secondly - the whole 'already taxed' argument is moot. Say you earned $1,000 at your job. You invest $400 in the market. You make $200 off that investment (you sell it for $600). Why shouldn't you pay the same tax rate that you did on your $1,000 earned income? That $200 isn't 'money' that you have paid taxes on already (you have only paid taxes on the $400 that you invested). It spends no differently than the $1000 you earned at your job. You invested time in your job, maybe sweat and physical risk. Why do we reward investing money more than we reward work? If you bet on a horse and won $200 that would be taxed as ordinary income.
And why should the government always tax capital gains at a lower rate - Clinton lowered it from 28% to 20% in '97 - however, within 3 years the economy was already downturning. Bush continued the trend lowering it to 15% in 2003 - and that didn't do anything either.
There is a false assumption that lowering capital gain taxes will create economic gain, however, the people who invest have been shown they will invest pretty much the same at Reagan's rate of 28% or Bush's rate of 15%.
I think we shouldn't 'create classes' because of the type of income that you earn - pay 18% on anything and everything - from selling puppies to dealing in overnight commodities. Income is income. Period.
Investments don't lead to economic growth?! Care to explain that? I can't think of ANY economic theory that thinks that.
How does the current system "penalize work"?
Are you saying that double taxation is between income tax and capital gains tax? It is typically between corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. The same source of income, taxed twice.
Also, it is false to compare physical risk to fiscal risk. To characterize it in this manner is a half-truth at best. BOTH areas offset risk in different ways but you are avoiding how risk is offset with more dangerous work.
The risk of monetary loss in investments is offset by the lower tax rate.
The risk of harm on the job is offset by higher pay, better benefits, etc.
Who is "creating classes" here? That is typically an illusion the Left tries to create to further there class warfare rhetoric. Capitalism is the one system that abolishes a static class structure. Only by focusing on abstract statistical categories does the Left create the illusion of a static class structure. They will point to the amount of people in poverty or in the top 1% from year to year while ignoring the fact that the people in those categories from one year to the next are not the same people. Basically, they ignore income mobility.
It seems you missed my last two questions;
I would also add; what is the purpose of taxes in your view?
How does the current system "penalize work"?
Are you saying that double taxation is between income tax and capital gains tax? It is typically between corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. The same source of income, taxed twice.
Also, it is false to compare physical risk to fiscal risk. To characterize it in this manner is a half-truth at best. BOTH areas offset risk in different ways but you are avoiding how risk is offset with more dangerous work.
The risk of monetary loss in investments is offset by the lower tax rate.
The risk of harm on the job is offset by higher pay, better benefits, etc.
Who is "creating classes" here? That is typically an illusion the Left tries to create to further there class warfare rhetoric. Capitalism is the one system that abolishes a static class structure. Only by focusing on abstract statistical categories does the Left create the illusion of a static class structure. They will point to the amount of people in poverty or in the top 1% from year to year while ignoring the fact that the people in those categories from one year to the next are not the same people. Basically, they ignore income mobility.
- 80% of millionaires in this country are self-made
- The top .01% of income earners in 1996 saw their incomes cut in half by 2005. That same study found that:
- There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during
the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income
quintile over this period. - Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved
up to a higher income group by 2005. - Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent –
only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of
these taxpayers declined over this period. - The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade
(1987 through 1996). - Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from
1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after
adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over
this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income
groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher
income groups.
- There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during
- W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm concluded that by 1991, only 5% of those in the bottom quintile of earners in 1975 remained there while 59% moved into the top 40% of income earners
It seems you missed my last two questions;
- Do you agree that we should grow our way out of the recession?
- Do you agree with the Right to property?
I would also add; what is the purpose of taxes in your view?
Changing the tax rate on investments doesn't lead to more or less economic growth - when you look at the availability of capital (percent of GNP) during Reagan (capital gains taxed at 28%) and BushII (capital gains taxed at 15%) there is very little difference. So, rewarding investment with lower tax rates doesn't change the amount of investment capital in the system.
It taxes 'work' at a higher rate. Ordinary income, other than very low income rates, is taxed at a higher rate. Therefore, if make 100,000 at an ordinary income job, and are taxed at 22%, you will take home $78,000. However if you make 100,000 on capital gains, and are taxed at 15%, you will take home $85,000. If you work you will take home $7,000 less. Pretty decent sized penalty.
Once again - if someone buys a part from us - and I get paid with the profits from that part - that source of income is taxed twice.
But that is the private sector 'rewarding' risk of harm on the job (but that is false too - I make more than fireman, however, my risk is considerably less). We are talking about the government rewarding monetary risk, which they do, but they do nothing to reward physical risk. Once again - why is physical risk considered 'less' than monetary risk? And why is the government making a distinction?
so... what does this mean when we are talking about taxing them. Probably 95% of the middle class in this country are 'self-made'???????
A 2011 study by the CBO 2011 found that the top earning 1% of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007
Which mean 1/2 moved down.... so....
You do realize that there is always movement between the groups - so it isn't surprising that some fell out of that category (how much did snoop dog blow on blow for instance....).
Once again - soooo - we aren't getting any better since 1987?????
Really - the WSJ doesn't think so... (you have some fairly old source shag...)
From 2000 to 2010, median income in the U.S. declined 7% after adjusting for inflation, according to Census data. That marks the worst 10-year performance in records going back to 1967. On average, the economists expect inflation-adjusted incomes to rise over the next decade, but the 5% projected gain isn't enough to reach prerecession levels.
Yes, but growth doesn't mean that we should tax income at different levels - How about bringing jobs back home, how about supporting american corporations instead of allowing venture capitalists to rape and pillage them, how about taking some of those taxes we should be collecting by equaling the tax code and helping small business - who are the real job creators in this country.
Not sure where you are going with this - you need to give you question in a less opened ended way. Do I agree with the right to property-yes.
To provide funds to our government -
However, for a long, long time the tax code has been an effective tool to control behavior. Here the government is using the tax code to alter behavior. I thought you hated the government using its power to alter behavior shag...
18% tax on all income - then the government isn't manipulating the game.
Actually the small business as jobs creator is a myth.
Owners of companies with less than 10 employees are likely mom and pop operations and small contractors content with their responsibilities income and lifestyle with no desire to expand.
It's medium sized 10 to 100 employee companies that are the new job creators.
Jobs are only created to meet demand for goods and services that make money.
The goal and responsibility of a company is to make money for it's owners and shareholders not create jobs.
Jobs are a tool to facilitate this.
The big problem is the 35% corporate tax rate, highest in the world.
It should be 25% to strengthen these sized American companies.
Currently a lot of professionals like doctors lawyers businessmen are S Corps where the profit of the corporation is considered personal income of the owners and taxed only once.
The companies who do not have offshore subsidiaries or make their bread and butter from capital gains are the ones who pay the full 35% plus their state rate which is 9% in New York and a little more in California.
They are the ones who carry the country.
I think we should get rid of this taxed once S Corp structure but also keep the top personal tax rate of 35%.
That way more profits can be kept in the company to grow and invest while only the money one actually pays oneself is taxed federally at 35%.
The IRS does not care under the accrual method if it takes you up to 6 months or even a year to get paid.
They consider a receivable on your books as income as soon as it's recorded and under threat of penalty want you to prepay your taxes 1/4ly.
The high corporate tax rate makes it hard to grow a company and produce these jobs as a byproduct of profit when you have to possibly borrow money from skittish banks to pay taxes on income you have not received.
Well - I don't really know a lot about tax rates for business (other than I think once again, they should just be simple - a certain percentage, and do a minimum global tax for companies who hold profit off-shore).
But I do know that:
The SBA has a section called Office of Size Standards that defines the appropriate size for a small business. The size standards are broken by NAICS industry classification and are based on two things (a) size standards in millions of dollars; and (b) by number of employee. In most industries, 500 is the maximum for small businesses, though there are industries where a business can have 1000-1500 employees yet still considered "small business"
So, it is small businesses that are creating the jobs...
Hey KS
Nice of you to bring this board back to life
Those who argue for equality seem to have a hard time accepting that a small some of us in a competitive society on our own merits are better and more successful and worth more by accomplishment than others.