Why the Sole Proprietor is Favored in the Law, and then Disfavored in Favor of Limited Liability Business Entities

Are you among those who think a progressive Republican or liberal Democrat is out to get the sole proprietor?

Tell me you know that the business expense deduction properly and legally claimed is the means to an end to further small businesses which are unlikely to be hobby ventures.  Americans who favor the graduated income tax know that at the point a small business pays a salary to its employees, the business in effect has no income which is subject to the graduated income tax.  That protection in the law is not going anywhere when you consider the realities of new growth enterprises.

When a sole proprietor, a limited liability company, a corporation, an international corporation, began to hide profits in off shore accounts and other maneuvers, they remove the wealth from the economy which is the Economy of these the United States of America.  The money supply shrinks, jobs are siphoned off to other economies where labor is slave labor poor and without any of the protections of the law we afford for one another in this our commonwealth.

Yes, it's true that no President fearful of re-election is going to print money at a rate that causes inflation of the currency (which he will do to some extent to counter the siphoning off of the wealth of our country into international capitalism).  Why is that?  Because persons on fixed incomes whose income is for the most part consumed by necessities are first to suffer the impact of inflation.

On the other hand, those with the means of enhanced income typically benefit from the economic maneuver of investment sectors such as home mortgage sector which just increases the interest rate on loans.  This triggers a spiralling and out of control economy as the rich make war on the rest of us who depend not on investment income but on the fruit of our actual daily labor.  The only way out is to tax the rich and increase the income tax on unearned income (as in sale of stocks, receipt of payment of dividends, and exercised stock options).  The push back is for the rich to say to the law makers if you do not allow us protected unearned income (essential interest and dividend income), well we are just going to take our money and invest  it where you can not tax it.

Geez!  Don't you love asking simple questions and getting complexity thrown right back at ya?  Be that as it may, are you absolutely wrong in defaming  "progressives" or "democrats."

The class war has been for some time now been on the little people who depend more on the sweat of their brows then on their leveraged investments which profit the rich at a very little risk (given limited liability law for investor protection and a lower tax rate for investment income).

Trickle down economics is an obscenity foisted on us by economic conservatives with no regard for the rest of us in society and for whom we represent only opportunity and exploitation.   A progressive wants government to be responsible for its effective expenditure of public funds (which includes foregone revenue from effectively taxing the wealth of the economy that has been squirrelled away by the rich people and even richer corporations)..

If I find an economic conservative who is a progressive typically, I find a hypocrite whose pockets are lined by corporate America and special interests.  If I find a true progressive, I typically see a public servant who regards ordinary wage earners as the lowest common denominator and as one who asks at every turn: "How will this change in the law affect the little guy and gal who have to buy milk and rush their baby to the emergency room and go to food shelf and stand in line for a job and be badmouthed by the folks who have it made?"