Just finished our tax returns

[fb360]

"If the rich have more money to spend on business that they would be able to hire more workers" is a flawed ideology and has never worked in reality. It sounds good coming out of a politicians mouth, it hasn't and won't ever be the case in reality.

As a small business owner I can say that if I had more money to hire employees with, I would. Period. I know other business owners will tend to agree with me there.

fb360? what am I talking about? I am illiterate? I said, I thought fairly clearly that the rich get direct tax advantages from the government. If what you are claiming is true then those tax advantages should discourage the rich from working as those advantages favor those who do not work.

You are presuming that the rich do not get any handouts, that only the poor do. If that is truly your presumption then how am I the one who is illiterate?

I never said any of the such, which is exactly why you are illiterate.

I merely said that an increasing % tax system IS NOT FAIR. It is inherent. Care to explain how 10% == 50%???
I'm against anyone who is screwing the system, especially the wealthy. However, that doesn't change the fact that having different tax brackets is just inherently "not fair".

I'd like to see how having to pay a greater % of their earned income is an advantage

 

[mr2shim]

As a small business owner I can say that if I had more money to hire employees with, I would. Period. I know other business owners will tend to agree with me there.

That's good. I don't think the tax burden should be laid on small business. Like I said in my previous post. The govt has continually had to pump more money into assistance programs while inflation continues to rise and wages stay the same. This model can't be sustained. If people want the government to tax them less, maybe wages need to rise so people don't need to rely on the government to make ends meet.

 

[canndo]

Who is suggesting we take money from the rich and give it to the poor? I don't think I've ever heard someone actually suggest that. That is a Republican talking point and should never be used in a conversation. "If the rich have more money to spend on business that they would be able to hire more workers" is a flawed ideology and has never worked in reality. It sounds good coming out of a politicians mouth, it hasn't and won't ever be the case in reality.

In short, people should have enough money to do more than just "get by" even if they work at McDonald's; willingly or if that's the only job they can get. They shouldn't have to rely on the Government to survive. I think we both can agree on that.

IF people could survive off their 40 hour a week check alone, why would the Government need to put so much into assistance programs? Seems to me the problem lies with the private sector and the fact that wages are not keeping up with inflation.

When Walmart looks to establish a store in a community they also "ask" for incentives - "why should we put our store in your community rather than another". The city fathers commonly give Walmart incentives in the form of tax breaks in order that they will put a store in THEIR city. They don't do that if Ma and Pa kettle want to start up a little hard ware store. Walmart claims to those city fathers in turn that their store will create jobs and that is why they should get those tax breaks. What they don't say is that the jobs are low paying and that not only did the city neglect to help Ma and Pa ( who also would have created jobs), but the Ma and Pa jobs would likely pay more.

finally, when these new Walmart employees go to the manager and say that they just aren't making enough to support themselves (and Ma and Pa are now out of business), Walmart give them a list of state and federal services they can use in order for them to pay for their food, help their kids in college, get health care and so forth.

So what has happened is that Walmart (and its owners) are subsidized by you and me. We now have to pay what should have been a part of walmart salary, we now have to take up the slack for the taxes that walmart was forgiven - we have to pay for the road expansion necessary due to the extra traffic and even after all of that, walmart can at any time simply leave town.

These are some of the handouts to the rich that the middle class wind up paying.

 

[fb360]

The govt has continually had to pump more money into assistance programs while inflation continues to rise and wages stay the same. This model can't be sustained.

Agreed.

123456789

When Walmart looks to establish a store in a community they also "ask" for incentives - "why should we put our store in your community rather than another". The city fathers commonly give Walmart incentives in the form of tax breaks in order that they will put a store in THEIR city. They don't do that if Ma and Pa kettle want to start up a little hard ware store. Walmart claims to those city fathers in turn that their store will create jobs and that is why they should get those tax breaks. What they don't say is that the jobs are low paying and that not only did the city neglect to help Ma and Pa ( who also would have created jobs), but the Ma and Pa jobs would likely pay more.

These are some of the handouts to the rich that the middle class wind up paying.

You're right, and I strongly hate that shit.

I'm an advocate for small business, and even more so to boycott shitty ass money hungry corporations like Walmart.
Just 15 min ago I went to a locally owned burrito store, instead of Filibertos, which is a chain.

Not every wealthy company is like Walmart though. Google and Intel are great examples of large and wealthy companies that treat their employees correctly.
The problem is that owners are being FORCED to treat people half way decently. It should be a given that you HAVE to treat people who work for you well; the govt should not have to pick up the tab (tax payers)

 

[canndo]

As a small business owner I can say that if I had more money to hire employees with, I would. Period. I know other business owners will tend to agree with me there.


I never said any of the such, which is exactly why you are illiterate.

I merely said that an increasing % tax system IS NOT FAIR. It is inherent. Care to explain how 10% == 50%???
I'm against anyone who is screwing the system, especially the wealthy. However, that doesn't change the fact that having different tax brackets is just inherently "not fair".

I'd like to see how having to pay a greater % of their earned income is an advantage

As a small business owner of my 4th business I can tell you that I would not hire another employee unless demand for my goods and services exceeds my current capacity. If the government were to allow me to keep more of my money, I would... keep the money. I don't hire out of the goodness of my heart, to help employee's families, to help the economy or because I want more people in my shop.


Of course, the conversation always looks the same here. Someone complains that the "poor" get handouts and that isn't fair to the "rich". I point out that the rich get handouts galore in many forms whereby the responder starts by claiming it isn't so, when it is proven that it IS so, they say, in a general way that they aren't in favor of anyone taking advantage of the system. But you didn't complain about the rich getting handouts, you didn't claim that the rich getting more than their fair share of government largess is unfair, you claimed that the poor (the ones least able to fend for themselves, the ones who can't seem to manage getting lobbyists in Washington) are the ones who are taking advantage of the system.


I am not quite as illiterate as you maintain.

Fred here goes to work every morning, spends 9 hours a day grinding valves, he spends half an hour and an eighth tank of expensive fuel (non deductable by the way) to get to his job and his income is taxed more than Bill, who inherited his money, invests it in the market, needs to go nowhere, does not have to pay the federal and state tax on fuel and the earnings from his investments are taxed at a lower rate than Fred's income.


Now how is that fair again?

 

[fb360]

As a small business owner of my 4th business I can tell you that I would not hire another employee unless demand for my goods and services exceeds my current capacity. If the government were to allow me to keep more of my money, I would... keep the money. I don't hire out of the goodness of my heart, to help employee's families, to help the economy or because I want more people in my shop.

Then you've maxed out your companies potential, and should be looking to grow elsewhere, or just call it a day... I don't know ANYONE who would pass up making MORE money.

Of course, the conversation always looks the same here. Someone complains that the "poor" get handouts and that isn't fair to the "rich". I point out that the rich get handouts galore in many forms whereby the responder starts by claiming it isn't so, when it is proven that it IS so, they say, in a general way that they aren't in favor of anyone taking advantage of the system. But you didn't complain about the rich getting handouts, you didn't claim that the rich getting more than their fair share of government largess is unfair, you claimed that the poor (the ones least able to fend for themselves, the ones who can't seem to manage getting lobbyists in Washington) are the ones who are taking advantage of the system.

Not true at all. I agree completely with your Walmart example. I was more talking about individual people, but I do know that some of the wealthy screw the system as well. What I'm not for is inherently taxing an individual more because he was more successful.

Heres an example:

If you make $398,350, you are taxed 33%
if you make $398,351, you are taxed 35%

So you're telling me that if you were going to make roughly that amount, you wouldn't error on the side of the lower tax bracket? That making literally $1 should move you up 2% and cause an increase of ~$8000 more in taxes due? No. It makes absolutely NO SENSE, and rewards staying in the lower bracket.

e;
my numbers might be a bit off but you get the point.

 

[canndo]

Agreed.

123456789




You're right, and I strongly hate that shit.

I'm an advocate for small business, and even more so to boycott shitty ass money hungry corporations like Walmart.
Just 15 min ago I went to a locally owned burrito store, instead of Filibertos, which is a chain.

Not every wealthy company is like Walmart though. Google and Intel are great examples of large and wealthy companies that treat their employees correctly.
The problem is that owners are being FORCED to treat people half way decently. It should be a given that you HAVE to treat people who work for you well; the govt should not have to pick up the tab (tax payers)

Nope, not every company is like Walmart, but it only takes a few companies "like" walmart to equal the money that you claim is unfair in "handouts" to the poor.

here is the difference - if the walmart handout is cut off because it isn't fair, the Walton family will still have no problem putting their children through college and everyone is still going to eat.


Now you are changing the argument from what is, to, in this example of corporate abuse, what should be.

Look at something else as well. That place you boycott in favor of Filibertos? I would urge you, before you begin to do such things, to find out if that Filibertos you drove past is a part of the chain or is it, perhaps, owned by a small business person who has two of the franchises in your city. He makes a decent living, $160k a year between the two franchises but he works a 70 hour week, sees to it that HIS employees get every advantage he can offer them including a small but meaningful contribution to their group health plan.

Nothing is as simple as it appears, not even the act of voting with your wallet.

But my point remains. I hear people complaining about handouts all the time and I rarely hear them complaining bout corporate handouts, only how unfair it is that the government "takes" from the rich and "gives" to the poor.

As with the other example, it isn't all that simple.

 

[canndo]

Oh, and FB, do you really believe that Google and Intel don't get something from the government that other industries don't get? It isn't just their employees, it is half a thousand different incentives from subsidizing foreign green card holders (when contrary to what they tell you, we have lots of quality workers) to exemptions for land use, electricity consumption, export fees, who knows - but they all wind up being handouts to and for the rich.

 

[fb360]

But my point remains. I hear people complaining about handouts all the time and I rarely hear them complaining bout corporate handouts, only how unfair it is that the government "takes" from the rich and "gives" to the poor.

As with the other example, it isn't all that simple.

Actually it IS that simple.. I know individuals who purposely close down shop (tell the employees they have to take the week off, etc) so that they won't move into another bracket...
That is rewarding failure, not success. That is the problem with the tax system and our government as a whole.

Secondly, I never changed the argument, you did. I'm still talking about how having increasing % tax brackets is inherently NOT FAIR..

Lastly, I have never said that I'm only against the poor taking handouts. I'm against ANYONE taking handouts.

Oh, and FB, do you really believe that Google and Intel don't get something from the government that other industries don't get? It isn't just their employees, it is half a thousand different incentives from subsidizing foreign green card holders (when contrary to what they tell you, we have lots of quality workers) to exemptions for land use, electricity consumption, export fees, who knows - but they all wind up being handouts to and for the rich.

And Intel is in the process of hiring 10k+ new employees in a time that new jobs benefit the poor, as jobs are hard to find.

You are stuck on corporations though. Take your argument to individuals and you have none. Individuals like myself don't get tax breaks... Instead, all I get is a high % tax that I owe. Now who is getting screwed?

 

[canndo]

Then you've maxed out your companies potential, and should be looking to grow elsewhere, or just call it a day... I don't know ANYONE who would pass up making MORE money.



.

What? Ok, so there is an exception I suppose, I could hire someone to market or a sales person on the presumption that he or she would be able to generate more business but otherwise, I would be a fool to hire someone in the presumption that the act of putting one more person on the payroll would automaticaly increase my bottom line. No, it doesn't work that way and any reasonable businessman knows that. If number of workers = profit then every company in the country would be vying for those last holdout unemployed folk.

I am truly astounded by how many people simply don't seem to realize that companies don't inevitably put their extra resources into their payroll.

Beyond that, even if my company were "maxed out" (which it currently is until we see some changes in the law - I am not going to invest further in something that could be wiped out with the signature of someone in government until I see a bit more certainty.

Now we have the meat of the conversation. You don't want someone to be penalized for doing well. Fine, nor do I, but I am fully aware that the more "well" the person does the more he depended upon the system in order to do so. In that sense, they should pay more. I liken it to two people who stay in a hotel. John stays in the suite, he has a consierge (and he might not even know this comes with the room), a view of the pool, a pass for the excercise room, a paper dropped by his door every morning, his bed turned down each evening. Connie is staying in the same hotel but she is in the bottom floor, she gets no paper, no morning coffee and muffin, she has no view and has to pay extra for her faxes and WIFI.

But when John goes to check out he complains because he is charged more than Connie. After all, it is the same hotel, same food, same gym, why should he pay more than Connie?


Now as far as your tax situation is concerned I figure you don't make much in investments. My capital gains are taxed much differently than my other income, isn't yours?

 

[fb360]

I am truly astounded by how many people simply don't seem to realize that companies don't inevitably put their extra resources into their payroll.

I'm not saying companies always do, but it is a high possibility.

If you already are making your margins, and are handed cash to improve your company, what would you do? Pocket the money, or invest it into the company one way or another?

but I am fully aware that the more "well" the person does the more he depended upon the system in order to do so.

How so? I just gave the example of the creators of instagram. How did the govt help them AT ALL? They didn't. Their success is purely due to their work and knowledge. Now the govt is going to try take 10s of millions from them for being successful as individuals.

Overnight the govt increased their tax % to the highest bracket possible. Is that fair? Hell no

 

[canndo]

Actually it IS that simple.. I know individuals who purposely close down shop (tell the employees they have to take the week off, etc) so that they won't move into another bracket...
That is rewarding failure, not success. That is the problem with the tax system and our government as a whole.

Secondly, I never changed the argument, you did. I'm still talking about how having increasing % tax brackets is inherently NOT FAIR..

Lastly, I have never said that I'm only against the poor taking handouts. I'm against ANYONE taking handouts.



And Intel is in the process of hiring 10k+ new employees in a time that new jobs benefit the poor, as jobs are hard to find.

You are stuck on corporations though. Take your argument to individuals and you have none. Individuals like myself don't get tax breaks... Instead, all I get is a high % tax that I owe. Now who is getting screwed?

That one has to pay taxes means that one is earning money. Period. Anyone who shuts down their shop for fear of making money is the same sort of person you claim I must be, after all, aren't we all out to make money? Fear of moving oneself into a higher tax bracket means that the person is lazy, even a tax of 50 percent means that the person being taxed makes the other 50 percent. I might begin to understand that one might not want to linger at the bottom of the next bracket but work a little harder and they will be in the middle of that bracket and still be making money.


With that sort of logic, why work at all? one is bound to be in one bracket or anotherr and often at the bottom of one.

Now I am stuck on corporations because that is the easiest way to describe the situation. The waltons are individuals. Most CEOs and presidents have their personal fortunes tied to the fortunes of the companies they run and it is a rare corporation indeed that is actually piloted by average stock holders. Beyond that, wasn't it Mit Romney who said "corporations are people too my friend"?

 

[fb360]

That one has to pay taxes means that one is earning money. Period. Anyone who shuts down their shop for fear of making money is the same sort of person you claim I must be, after all, aren't we all out to make money? Fear of moving oneself into a higher tax bracket means that the person is lazy, even a tax of 50 percent means that the person being taxed makes the other 50 percent. I might begin to understand that one might not want to linger at the bottom of the next bracket but work a little harder and they will be in the middle of that bracket and still be making money.


With that sort of logic, why work at all? one is bound to be in one bracket or anotherr and often at the bottom of one.

Now I am stuck on corporations because that is the easiest way to describe the situation. The waltons are individuals. Most CEOs and presidents have their personal fortunes tied to the fortunes of the companies they run and it is a rare corporation indeed that is actually piloted by average stock holders. Beyond that, wasn't it Mit Romney who said "corporations are people too my friend"?

Romney was a hypocritical asswipe. Correction... "is a"

"With that sort of logic, why work at all? one is bound to be in one bracket or anotherr and often at the bottom of one."
DING DING DING we have a winner! This is EXACTLY what the increase % bracket system does, especially to "the poor", as they honestly need every penny they make. As a consequence, if they are within $1000 of moving up, why would they? Also, if you can earn more sitting at home collecting welfare, why work? We need to kill that mentality and reward success

Do I know how to fix the system, no. Do I know the system needs fixing, yes

 

[mr2shim]

Romney was a hypocritical asswipe. Correction... "is a"

"With that sort of logic, why work at all? one is bound to be in one bracket or anotherr and often at the bottom of one."
DING DING DING we have a winner! This is EXACTLY what the increase % bracket system does, especially to "the poor", as they honestly need every penny they make. As a consequence, if they are within $1000 of moving up, why would they? Also, if you can earn more sitting at home collecting welfare, why work? We need to kill that mentality and reward success

Do I know how to fix the system, no. Do I know the system needs fixing, yes

The welfare system wasn't designed or put in place for the people who refuse to work when they are good and able to do so. It was put in place to help those in need, who have fell on hard times. To say do away with it(even though you aren't) is stupid. It needs reworking to prevent good and able bodies from not getting a job and living off welfare and other assistance programs.

 

[canndo]

I'm not saying companies always do, but it is a high possibility.

If you already are making your margins, and are handed cash to improve your company, what would you do? Pocket the money, or invest it into the company one way or another?


How so? I just gave the example of the creators of instagram. How did the govt help them AT ALL? They didn't. Their success is purely due to their work and knowledge. Now the govt is going to try take 10s of millions from them for being successful as individuals.

Overnight the govt increased their tax % to the highest bracket possible. Is that fair? Hell no

Sorry FB, I don't hire extra people just because I have the money to do so. I would be better served by updating my equipment or, yes, putting the money aside for a time when it would come in handy and finally, yes damn it, taking my profit and playing with it or putting it to my retirement or taking a vacation with my wife. Unless I can give that employee something profitable (for me) to do, then why on earth would I hire someone and incur all the expenses that an employee creates? No, no company that is or can be ongoingly successful will hire just for the sake of hiring unless it is a relative.


I don't know the story of Instagram. I do know that every major company depends upon the government in dozens if not hundreds of ways.


We all, often, take our culture and our surroundings for granted. Our financial stability (relatively), our security, our safety, our infrastructure, weights and measures, the post office, the roads, an educated citizenry, all these things contribute to the ability of one man to create, manage and perpetuate a company that does his bidding, makes a product, markets it, advertises it, sells it delivers it and supports it after the sale.

None of this happens in a societal vacuum. It is government that inefficeintly or not, makes all of this possible.

 

[fb360]

The welfare system wasn't designed or put in place for the people who refuse to work when they are good and able to do so. It was put in place to help those in need, who have fell on hard times. To say do away with it(even though you aren't) is stupid. It needs reworking to prevent good and able bodies from getting a job.

Theoretically you're correct. Realistically, the system is chronically abused.

I'm not saying to get rid of it(which you understand). I'm saying to get rid of the mentality "minimum work for benefits". It's a mentality that speaks fluently with lazy individuals.

 

[mr2shim]

I'm not saying companies always do, but it is a high possibility.

That's actually not true at all. When companies pull record profits, you don't see an increase in their employment. The CEO, CFO, COO and other top executives. see nice big bonuses.

 

[canndo]

Romney was a hypocritical asswipe. Correction... "is a"

"With that sort of logic, why work at all? one is bound to be in one bracket or anotherr and often at the bottom of one."
DING DING DING we have a winner! This is EXACTLY what the increase % bracket system does, especially to "the poor", as they honestly need every penny they make. As a consequence, if they are within $1000 of moving up, why would they? Also, if you can earn more sitting at home collecting welfare, why work? We need to kill that mentality and reward success

Do I know how to fix the system, no. Do I know the system needs fixing, yes

Then why do you work at all? why do all those who bitch about (individual) "handouts" do anything when we all know that we can sit back and draw a check from the government?

 

[fb360]

Then why do you work at all? why do all those who bitch about (individual) "handouts" do anything when we all know that we can sit back and draw a check from the government?

That would make me a hypocrite and a lazy ass piece of shit.

I work because it is not only the right thing to do, but because I want to be successful. I WANT to work for a living. I want to earn my way.

That's actually not true at all. When companies pull record profits, you don't see an increase in their employment. The CEO, CFO, COO and other top executives. see nice big bonuses.

Again I wasn't discussing corporations, but sure, that does happen. You however can't deny that a Ma and Pa shop might use those profits to hire some extra help so that they no longer have to work 80 hour weeks...

 

[canndo]

The welfare system wasn't designed or put in place for the people who refuse to work when they are good and able to do so. It was put in place to help those in need, who have fell on hard times. To say do away with it(even though you aren't) is stupid. It needs reworking to prevent good and able bodies from getting a job.

There is and will always be fraud and abuse of welfare and the welfare system - there will be abuse in any system designed to help the unfortunate. The question is, at what point is the helping the needy no longer worth the expense of the fraud.


If I say "we help 9 people who would likely starve were we not sending them money, but one (we don't know which one) is perfectly capable of working and opts not to"

What do we do? throw the system out? let the 9 starve? what if the ratio was 5 people who need help and 5 people who do not?


What I believe the protesters do not comprehend is that the welfare system does not put lazy people on easy street.


a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300..


Now THERE is incentive not to work!