By Sandy Botkin
This may be a decade of tremendous corporate profits and
economic growth, but for the vast majority of North Americans, the 90's have been
a dismal, uphill climb. And many economists believe that this next, new
millennium won't be getting better any time soon.
Why?
Changing business and government attitudes are the
reason. There has seemingly been more anti-business legislation in the last
decade than in any other this century.
-
stronger employment and labor
laws
-
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
-
the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA,
which includes mandating health insurance for workers for a period of time
after they leave employment)
-
safety laws
-
much tougher laws for discharging workers
-
more liabilities for lawsuits
-
the Family Leave Act
-
the Americans with Disabilities Act (which is creating
immense numbers of lawsuits)
-
higher minimum wages and fringe benefits
Just reading this list is
exhausting.
While these acts have beneficial and protective
aspects, they have also encouraged businesses to move their facilities. That
"sucking sound" popularized by Ross Perot is not just down to Mexico, but
elsewhere as well. The result has been a dramatic loss of heavy industry in
the U.S.
The young and the middle-aged alike are realizing
that their dream of "having a job with a company forever" is an illusion.
Companies have been downsizing, rightsizing, and capsizing for some time now,
and they continue to do so-more now than ever before. Even the federal and
state governments are getting into the act with layoffs and attrition of
jobs.
In addition to all this uncertainty and mutual lack
of loyalty between companies and employees, even the workers who do not keep
their jobs have no guarantee of promotions due to the shrinking number of
management positions. These circumstances aggravate the already tryingly long
commutes in rush hour traffic and increasingly typical frustrated
boss-spelled backwards, that double S-O-B.
Finally, if all this isn't bad enough, under recent
tax laws employees are shafted more than ever wit h limits and thresholds for
their employee deductions and higher social security tax limits. This results
in more couples working than ever before and, on many occasions, working more
than one job. It is now almost impossible to have only one job in the family
and make ends meet! Today, many households need three incomes just to
survive.
Sadly, even having more than one job does not produce
any major positive effect on most people's bank accounts. Why? Because of tax
laws. This was well illustrated in 1994 by Jane Bryant Quinn in her Woman's
Day article on "How to Live on One Salary."
Where the Money
Goes
Ms. Quinn's example assumed that a man was earning
$40,000 per year. His wife (we will call her Lori) wasn't working. They had
more month than money. (Sound familiar?) Lori subsequently got an
administrative job for $15,000 per year. You would think this would improve
the family's financial situation, but when Ms. Quinn examined the economics
of getting this extra income, the results were startling!
Lori had to pay federal and state taxes on her new
income. Since they filed jointly, the family's combined income was what
established their tax bracket. She paid $4,500 in new taxes, most of which
was non-deductible, for federal and state income tax.
Lori had social security withheld from her paycheck
at the rate of 7.65 percent, which amounted to an additional nondeductible
amount of $1,148 being extracted from her salary. She also had to commute to
work 10 miles a day round trip, which is probably conservative for most
people. This resulted (in 1995) in nondeductible commuting costs of
$696.
Lori also had some child care expenses, which give a
partial tax credit. Ms. Quinn figured that the amount spent over and beyond
the tax credit was $4,250 per year.
Lori also ate out each day with colleagues, spending
an average of $5 per day, five days a week. This results in a nondeductible
expense of $1,250 per year. ( I would love to know where she ate fore only
$5!)
Now that Lori has a job, she has to have professional
clothing, this means a hefty dry cleaning bill. Ms. Quinn assumed that Lori's
increased expenses here amounted to an extra $1,000 per year, nondeductible,
of course.
Finally, with both spouses working, Lori wasn't in
the mood to cook dinner every night. They bought more convenience foods and
ate out more frequently. This resulted in increased food costs of a
nondeductible $1,000 per year in minimum.
Add it all up and Lori's take home pay was a paltry
$1,156 a year, for which she had to put up with a daily commute, an
unpleasant boss, and corporate hassles. (See the following summary of all of
these numbers, so you can do the math for yourself.)
No wonder more and more people are starting
home-based businesses. In fact, there are currently an estimated 30 million
people working from their homes. This number is expected to more than triple,
to 97 million, by the year 2000, and to keep on growing. This has become and
will continue to be one of the greatest mass movements in the
U.S.
Why a Home-Based Business
Makes So Much "Cents"
There are many reasons why so many people are
favoring home-based over traditional business.
There is no commute (unless you have a really big
home), no boss, little if any chance of lawsuits, much lower overhead, no
employees, (or few), and far fewer government restrictions. In fact, many of
the laws previously cited don't apply to small firms with few or no
employees. It is for these reasons, according to Entrepreneur magazine, that
95 percent of home-based businesses succeed in their first year and achieve
an average income of $50,250 per year with many earning much
more.
There are really two sets of tax laws in this
country. One is for employees, and it allows deductions for individual
retirement accounts, 401(k)s (if you have one set up by your company),
interest and property taxes on your home (which some in Congress want to do
away with ), and charity. Then there are the laws for home-based business
people who conduct their business either full-time or part-time. They can
deduct, with proper documentation ,their house, their spouse, and even
children (by hiring them), their business vacations, their cars, and their
food with colleagues. They can also set up a pension plan that makes any
government plan seem paltry by comparison.
For Lori-and for you - the meaning of all this is
simple:
Lori earned $15,000 in salary as an employee, but
took home only $1,156. She could have netted the entire $15,000 had she
earned it in a home-based business!
This is an increase of almost 13 times her take-home
pay as an employee.
Notice that Lori is not spending dramatically more
money than she is currently spending. She would eat out anyway, go on trips
and drive her car the same as before. By having a home-based business,
however, many of their expenses become deductible. This concept is known as
"redirecting expenses." With a home-based business, she can now deduct some
of the expenses that she is incurring anyway.
Renegade Strategy: If You
Don't Have a Home-Based Business, Start
One!
In addition to all the benefits mentioned above,
Congress will subsidize you while you are growing your home-based business.
If your home-based business produces a tax loss in the first year or so, you
can use that tax loss against any other income you have. It can be used
against wages earned as an employee, dividends, pensions, or interest
income-or you can use the loss against your spouse's earnings if you file a
joint return.
If the tax loss exceeds all your income for this
year, no problem. You can carry back the loss two years and get a refund from
the IRS for up to the last two years of income taxes paid, or you can carry
over the loss twenty years. You read it right: You can offset up to 20 years
of income!
Here's an
Example:
Mike earns $50,000 in a job with the government. If
he starts a home-based business that generates a tax loss of 10,000, he only
pays tax on $40,000.
Renegade Tip: You can never lose a properly
documented business deduction.
In fact, if everyone in the U.S., who is
employed full-time began a home-base business,used the strategies I suggest,
each household could easily save between $2000 and $10,000 in taxes each
year. If all employees in the U.S. did this, the tax bite of the IRS would be
reduced by a whopping estimated 300 billion dollars annually. Of course,
Congress would have to change the laws for this to occur.
Renegade Strategy: Get
LUCK (Labor Under Correct Knowledge).
Can You Succeed In a
Home-Based Business?
Research has constantly shown that it is rarely the
business that determines success or failure. It is usually the business
owner. Why does one person succeed and another fail at the same
business? Two words:
Knowledge and Action
Some people want the benefits of having their own
business, but they don't take action. The result is business
failure.
Then there are the people who are always working. The
take action but still fail. The reason is that they are not taking the
correct actions, the knowledgeable actions, that will bring the desired
results. Again, business failure.
It's like drilling for oil. If you set up a drilling
rig in your back yard, it is going to fail at producing oil unless your back
yard is in Texas or Alaska. The same rig in a good field will produce a
gusher, because it was placed where oil was known to exist.
The point is that most people who get excited about
starting their own home-based business do so without all the necessary
knowledge. Consequently, many people quit before they acquire, through
experience, the knowledge they need, without realizing that they are getting
substantial tax breaks. This leads to another strategy....
Renegade Strategy: Learn
to Duplicate the Success of Others.
Duplicating the strategy of others is much quicker
and more effective than going to the school of hard knocks.
It is also known as modeling, which is
well-illustrated by the way The McDonalds Corporation blazed a trail to
success that many have since followed.
In the early 1950's McDonald's and other start-up
companies discovered that they could grow many times faster than the
conventional firms through franchising. Instead of the company investing
millions of dollars to build new stores, they let independent franchise do it
for them.
It seemed like a great idea, but at first no one
figured out how to make it succeed on a consistent basis; therefore, the
media attacked relentlessly and continually. News articles featured destitute
families who had lost their life savings through franchising schemes.
Virtually every state attorney general in the U.S. condemned the new
marketing method. Some congressmen even tried to outlaw franchising
entirely.
Over the years, however, Ray Kroc and his management
team at McDonald's developed a turnkey franchise business team at McDonald's
franchise. The newfound success-from the system-turned public perception of
franchising around. Today, virtually every franchise business models-to some
extent-the franchise business system created by McDonald's, making
franchising one of the most respected ways of doing business in the
world.
Modeling is simply learning what other successful
people have done to achieve success in a specific area, and then doing the
same thing. Someone said that "education is the shortcut to experience." With
modeling, you literally leverage your own learning with the collective years
of learning through experience of many others. Modeling the success of others
saves both time and money and reduces frustration and
stress.
The light at the end of the tunnel, for you and
millions of others today, is the financial opportunity that starting your own
business offers. If you have one going already, then make sure you are
enjoying the many financial advantages to which your smart choice entitles
you. The tax advantage alone can make a home-based business the single best
financial move you could ever make.