19
   

Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 11:49 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

You guys are conveniently forgetting the all important Joe the Plumber small, incorporated business owner. At 39% personal income taxes, after they've paid their corporate taxes, are getting up into the 80%+ tax rate.


can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

sure, everyone has the right to set out on their own. but the world doesn't guarantee that you will get rich doing it.

at least for me, the whole point was to be my own boss. it was a coin toss as to whether or not i'd make any money at all, never mind get rich.

previous experience told me that in most cases, a small business is most likely to see both depending on what day it was.

and, that if you have a small business that is giving you in excess of $250,000 dollars a year below the line, you would be one of the few.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 11:50 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
You mean one of the successful.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 11:55 am
@cjhsa,

Weird. Are you saying that a small business owner who makes less than $250,000 per year is not successful?

Are you making more than $250,000 per year?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:18 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
and, that if you have a small business that is giving you in excess of $250,000 dollars a year below the line, you would be one of the few.

I agree. It's easy to make $250k or more in revenue, but to scrape out $250k in profit is a whole different thing. If you're making $250k in profit as a "small" business, then you're doing GREAT.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:22 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

You guys are conveniently forgetting the all important Joe the Plumber small, incorporated business owner. At 39% personal income taxes, after they've paid their corporate taxes, are getting up into the 80%+ tax rate.


can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

sure, everyone has the right to set out on their own. but the world doesn't guarantee that you will get rich doing it.

at least for me, the whole point was to be my own boss. it was a coin toss as to whether or not i'd make any money at all, never mind get rich.

previous experience told me that in most cases, a small business is most likely to see both depending on what day it was.

and, that if you have a small business that is giving you in excess of $250,000 dollars a year below the line, you would be one of the few.


I represent another small business, one that currently grosses a lot under $250,000. (Hubby and I are semi-retired and have been ratcheting it it down over the last couple of years.) My business happens to put me in the position of seeing a lot of P & Ls and bottom lines of businesses all over the area. (I used to travel all of New Mexico and a big chunk of Texas.)

New Mexico is a relatively low income state and average wages, in comparison with other places, are less than in most states. But it is a rare small business that employs very many people that isn't grossing well over $500,000 and most are closer to a million or more. As you know, a business, whether sole proprietor, LLC, or Corporation can reduce its taxable income only by direct expensing meaning that it has to pay it out in salaries, inventory, necessary operating expenses, equipment and infrastructure. (The latter two are usually depreciated and can't be deducted as expense in a single year.)

So. . . . many if not most small businesses around here are very likely to have more than $250,000 as a bottom line by the end of the year. They don't want to increase inventory before the first of the year because they'll be taxed on that. If they pay it out in salaries, those receiving the salaries are taxed (including the owners if most goes to them) and it won't be available for new inventory or investment. But if they don't spend it, they are likely to be over the $250,000 threshhold and therefore subject to the higher taxes which reduces their ability to acquire inventory, invest to expand, hire new people, etc.

I certainly don't intentionally talk politics when I make my rounds, but the few business owners who have volunteered the information have all said they're voting for McCain.

The employees of course probably mostly favor Obama who is promising them a virtual utopia at no cost to them while finally getting those rich business owners--you know, the ones who take all the risks and put in the time to create jobs for the others--they'll finally have to give up some of all that lovely money because it isn't fair that they have so much more than the people who work for them.

Time will tell of course how it will all shake out. But I have long believed that you cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.



old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The employees of course probably mostly favor Obama who is promising them a virtual utopia at no cost to them


Uh? What utopia are we talking about, exactly?

You're throwing a lot of stuff around, Foxfyre. You're talking about Obama's Marxist policies. You're talking about a "virtual utopia at no cost".

Care to substantiate even a single one of your claims?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
You're conflating corporate tax with personal income tax.

Obama plans to reduce corporate taxes for small businesses.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:53 pm
It's no use hiding your wallets. There's a chip in the notes. They know where it all is. And anyway- you couldn't spend it either because you would draw attention yourselves when those who hadn't hidden their wallets saw you.

The last man with a wallet bulging with readies would be hunted down like a dog. Mississippi gambler or not.

If, with hindsight, a person, in some future year, who didn't hide his wallet looked back wistfully as he waited in line for his 6 a.m. pint of liquidised orange-juice/porrige/banana cocktail ( sweetened on national holidays) it would probably be to before the Dawn of the New Era rather than to that Dawn itself. As we mature people often look back to previous times.

Best thing is change it into coin and slip it down the back of the sofa. And have the sofa in the mother-in-law's name without her knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:55 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The employees of course probably mostly favor Obama who is promising them a virtual utopia at no cost to them


Uh? What utopia are we talking about, exactly?

You're throwing a lot of stuff around, Foxfyre. You're talking about Obama's Marxist policies. You're talking about a "virtual utopia at no cost".

Care to substantiate even a single one of your claims?


No thank you. I have learned from long experience that nothing I would offer as substantiation would satisfy you in any way and would only generate more questions. I am expressing an opinion like everybody else--an opinion developed from my first hand experience here in the real world--and if you don't understand what I'm saying, I will happily clarify. I think only those who don't want to understand are probably the only ones who don't, however.

You can accept it as my opinion or offer your own opinion as to why I am in error.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:58 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

New Mexico is a relatively low income state and average wages, in comparison with other places, are less than in most states. But it is a rare small business that employs very many people that isn't grossing well over $500,000 and most are closer to a million or more. [..] So. . . . many if not most small businesses around here are very likely to have more than $250,000 as a bottom line by the end of the year.

Umm -- the $250,000 number re Obama's tax plan is about people making over $250,000 in personal income. It's not about grossing over $250,000 as a business.

I mean, c'mon people. You've been discussing this for months now, and you still can't get the basics right? I get the feeling that this is mostly just emotion by now, fear and such -- sure seems to be little rational attempt going on anymore to actually figure out the facts and numbers.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:59 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

You're conflating corporate tax with personal income tax.

Obama plans to reduce corporate taxes for small businesses.


For all small business? Or only those earning under $250,000? The question Joe the Plumber asked him--you know the question that has had him investigated and discredited and dragged through the mud?--was exactly that. He hoped to acquire a small business and if it was successful, wouldn't he be penalized for that under Obama's plan? And Obama replied with the now famous line, "We want to spread the wealth around."

I think Obama fully expects to hang it in the ear of any small business that earns over $250,000. Those small business owners I mentioned that I've talked to here all believe he will do that too.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:59 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

New Mexico is a relatively low income state and average wages, in comparison with other places, are less than in most states. But it is a rare small business that employs very many people that isn't grossing well over $500,000 and most are closer to a million or more. [..] So. . . . many if not most small businesses around here are very likely to have more than $250,000 as a bottom line by the end of the year.

Umm -- the $250,000 number re Obama's tax plan is about people making over $250,000 in personal income. It's not about grossing over $250,000 as a business.

I mean, c'mon people. You've been discussing this for months now, and you still can't get the basics right? I get the feeling that this is mostly just emotion by now, fear and such -- sure seems to be little rational attempt going on anymore to actually figure out the facts and numbers.


If that was true, then the left would not have worked so hard to smear and slime and trash Joe the Plumber who raised that very issue.

And.....lately we've been seeing some suggestions that the $250,000 threshhold may be a bit negotiable too once Obama is in power. But then most things that Obama has said have been negotiable when holes get blown into them.

But, if I'm wrong about small business, show me the Obama line that sets the threshhold for the earnings that will cause higher taxes for business? I haven't seen anything other than that $250,000 threshhold.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I am expressing an opinion like everybody else--an opinion developed from my first hand experience here in the real world

You have learnt from first hand experience in the real world that Obama is "promising [employees] a virtual utopia at no cost to them"?

That first hand experience doesnt, apparently, actually involve anything Obama has specifically said, does it?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

If that was true, then the left would not have worked so hard to smear and slime and trash Joe the Plumber who raised that very issue.

Huh? Obama proposes to raise income taxes on those earning over $250,000. That's what Joe asked about. Look, there's no need for speculation here - no need to go "if that was true". If you want to know what Obama's tax plan is, you can look it up. Easy as pie, it's on the net. If you'd rather go on what "many small business owners" believe Obama is proposing - rather than on, you know, what he is actually proposing - then, well ... you're just going on rumor and perception, aren't you?

EDIT - ok, that last sentence must sound obscure now, since you edited your post, I think. I'm pretty sure it originally said something about how you believed Obama would tax businesses grossing over $250,000 and that sure was what many of the small business owners you talked to believe.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
In reply, I offer you this: "I have learned from long experience that nothing I would offer as substantiation would satisfy you in any way and would only generate more questions."



Rolling Eyes


You want to spout your drivel without substantiation, then you want to question what everyone else states.


Suffice it to say that you are confused, to say the least, about the general outlines of the Obama tax plan.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:20 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If that was true, then the left would not have worked so hard to smear and slime and trash Joe the Plumber who raised that very issue.

Huh? Obama proposes to raise income taxes on those earning over $250,000. That's what Joe asked about. Look, there's no need for speculation here - no need to go "if that was true". If you want to know what Obama's tax plan is, you can look it up. Easy as pie, it's on the net. If you'd rather go on what "many small business owners" believe Obama is proposing - rather than on, you know, what he is actually proposing - then, well ... you're just going on rumor and perception, aren't you?

EDIT - ok, that last sentence must sound obscure now, since you edited your post, I think. I'm pretty sure it originally said something about how you believed Obama would tax businesses grossing over $250,000 and that sure was what many of the small business owners you talked to believe.


Meaning you don't know? All I did was edit the syntax, not the content.

Here's a transcript of the conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber. (Obama's website is edited more than A2K posts and is not a reliable source for much of anything more than what Obama wants you to believe today. Tomorrow it could be something quite different.)

Quote:
Outside Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, a big, bald man with a goatee who asked Obama if he believes in the American dream.

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama said, "First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you'd get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 " then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up " from 250 " 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 " they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:22 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

In reply, I offer you this: "I have learned from long experience that nothing I would offer as substantiation would satisfy you in any way and would only generate more questions."



Rolling Eyes


You want to spout your drivel without substantiation, then you want to question what everyone else states.


Suffice it to say that you are confused, to say the least, about the general outlines of the Obama tax plan.


I'm sorry. Have I questioned anything you have stated? Please point out where I have done that. I sure may hold a different opinion from you, and I profoundly apologize about that, but I just can't help it. I gotta be me.

Anyway, the member I was addressing doesn't discuss things. He asks questions. And if you answer his question he asks another question. And so on until you give up. I just decided not to play the game this time. That's all. I do hope you understand.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:32 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm sorry. Have I questioned anything you have stated? Please point out where I have done that.


Foxfyre wrote:
For all small business? Or only those earning under $250,000?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:37 pm
@DrewDad,
That's not a challenge Drewdad. It isn't calling you an idiot or suggesting that you're posting drivel (as you so indelicately put it). I asked an honest question within a discussion leaving open the possibility that you were right. I didn't demand that you go find something to back it up. I was expressing the possibility that it was incorrect. All you had to do is say you're right and why you think you are.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 02:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
When you repeat factually incorrect assertions, even after being provided with the correct information, and refuse to provide any response or defense, then I will call it drivel.

You refused to provide any backup to your claims about McCain providing his birth certificate. You are refusing to provide any backup to your claims on this thread.

I'm trying to educate you on the facts; if you doubt my statements then by all means point out my errors. Tell me where I am wrong.

Here are some links:


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Comparison_FINAL.pdf
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 03:01:10