Brixtion_skin Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 We only employ 6 people,The Realestate bust & zero rate of new construction & the employer paid taxes will be too high for the company to pay, employees will be forced to pay ALL own their health care costs or pay fedreral fines to be uninsured & we can't afford to pay higher saleries to pay their own health care or fines. We have been losing $$ the past 2 years, the owner hasn't drawn a paycheck in a month & the end is nearKinda ironic that the Gov. is taxing us out of business,just like King George in the 1700's That does seem harsh and a bit daft. Over here we have what we call National Insurance contributions. All businesses have to pay it, but you only have to pay if the business earnings are over a certain amount. It seems insane to make people pay this tax if they have no earnings. You have my sympathies. Hope you make it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 That does seem harsh and a bit daft. Over here we have what we call National Insurance contributions. All businesses have to pay it, but you only have to pay if the business earnings are over a certain amount. It seems insane to make people pay this tax if they have no earnings. You have my sympathies. Hope you make it through. The business he has will be exempt, or they can get a tax credit for offering insurance. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=711&articleid=20120704_16_A1_Tevsao209702 "Individuals are not exempt. They will either have to find insurance or pay the fine (as he stated). Although small employers are exempt from the tax penalties for not providing health insurance, some of them are eligible for tax benefits if they do provide health insurance. Companies with up to 25 workers and average annual wages below $50,000 qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent if they give their workers qualified health insurance benefits. In 2014, the tax credit goes up to 50 percent. Small employers are exempt from the insurance mandate, but their employees are not. Starting in 2014, Americans will have to report on their tax returns if they have qualified health insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund. If they don't, they have to pay $95 or 1 percent of their taxable income, whichever is higher. In 2015, the tax rises to $325 or 2 percent of taxable income. In 2016, the tax rises again, to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income. The maximum penalty is $2,085 per family, and there are several exceptions to the tax." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 ... If the Tea Party has lost clout and the more moderate or establishment Republicans are more willing to stand up to them then I think there is a much better chance for some reasonable bipartisan agreements on taxes, etc. However, if Boehner doesn't grow a pair then I foresee the Tea Partiers just doubling down and forcing the same gridlock unless they get absolutely 100% of what they want while giving up absolutely 0% to the other side. The Tea Party represents the GOP narrative as told by GOP's media leadership arm. Nobody is going to stand up to the Tea Party. At best they may try to evolve some aspects of its narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 But the lobbyists will be okay, won't they? Please tell me the lobbyists will be okay. As long as government has their hands in everything, lobbyists will be gainfully employed. Does Obama have some unknown constitutional power of passing budgets now?I thought that was Congress's job. The House has passed budgets. The Senate hasn't. I'm wondering what CRs and other appropriations the house passes through now. I think they'll force Reid/President into real budget negotiations or risk a shut down. You write that R's have little or no incentive to cooperate... does Obama have control over that? Because you then write about Obama having the ability to change things by changing himself. I write that they have little incentive to cooperate because that's how I'm told they feel. I think they felt burned by past failed negotiations, but beyond that I think there really is a huge debt/tax/entitlement/health reform challenge in the next 12 months and they see no reason to help the president get out of those problems. If he can't give a little in negotiations, they won't cooperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 As long as government has their hands in everything, lobbyists will be gainfully employed. As long as our elected officials consider their positions with their hands out, they will be, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 WD, in the aggregate what I get from these posts is an angry, frustrated refusal to deal on the part of Republicans. Controlling only the House, they might not have the strength to force what they want onto the Democrats, but instead can make damn sure to inflict the maximum political damage on them. Not to mention significant economic damage to the country in the hopes the country will view this as Obama's fault. I, like you, expect the President to lead on the impending fiscal issues. He needs to work with his guys in Congress and come up with a plan. But I expect the Republicans to work with him, including swallowing the bitter pill that they lost and that the proper response is not to simply dig in even more determinedly. This could be accurate, but I think the R's would likely characterize their position as more nuanced. Band aids and continuous expansions to the debt ceiling are why we got here. If the Pres wants more extensions, there will be significant cuts and/or reform. Nothing resembling our fiscal status quo can be further supported by the R's without meaningful progress to fix the problem. What that specifically means in practice, I don't know. I still want to be optimistic. I always thought that all Presidents from either party wanted reall SS reform and real Medicare reform. They know the country needs it but Washington never lets it happen. Both W and Clinton wanted to put SS on more sound footing. It was Washington that wouldn't. Medicare is even more pressing now. I also think Obama is incented to make major reform to Medicare because that's his preferred model (as opposed to private models). This all adds up to an opportunity for change, but little confidence (within the audiences I had) that the President will make any real concessions to get what he wants. That is why the impending problems with health care reform really matter. The President might need Congress to bail him out of that problem. If so, he'll have to give somewhere else in a big way because the R's really have no incentive to help Healthcare reform actually work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Wrong Direction One more thing: I didn't hear this from anyone...just my thought. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a government shutdown in this environment. The debt ceiling, whenever hit, would be the trigger. It really seemed to me at least from yesterdays talks that R's will make Obama put his plans out there. No more implications about the right's positions behind closed doors. If O really wants to reform taxes, or Medicare, or pass a budget or whatever, he'll have to lead with real ideas on paper for the public to see. This was implied, but not stated. It was a depressing day. I really hope this is day-after-the-election stuff, but I was expecting hopeful feedback and all I got was pessimism. At least I wasn't talking to members of Congress or leaders in the executive branch. It was just plugged-in consultants, so take this for what it's worth. Yes I agree entirely... If Barak Obama can't give the republicans exactly what they need to hear on how he's going to fix the budget deficit.. I think it's the republican right to not raise the debt ceiling causing us to default on our national debt, our GDP to plumit, the entire world economy to go into recession, our credit rating to again be reduced and all future debt payments to go up significantly due to higher interest rates... Awsome, great idea.. hear hear.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 So, what you are saying is that the GOP will refuse to cooperate at all, and that somehow will make Obama the one who will politically "own" the mess that will result. :whoknows: What I was told is they'll deal if the President makes real concessions. If it's more of the same, his refusal to deal will make them walk away. Put yourself in the R's seat. If they just approve a bunch of more spending with little structural change, they're the same old republicans from W's years. That's what the Tea Party hated. They can't go back to being a big part of the problem in their constitutent's eyes. ---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:20 PM ---------- ---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:18 PM ---------- I think this PoV is from before the election. ... I think something will get done. This was my feeling until I got that feedback the day after the election. It wasn't week-old PoVs. It was same day. We'll see. ---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:26 PM ---------- As long as our elected officials consider their positions with their hands out, they will be, too. Lobbyists exist because of government. Without government, they'd just be considered a business marketing team. More government = more lobbyists, regardless of campaign finance etc. ---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:30 PM ---------- Yes I agree entirely... If Barak Obama can't give the republicans exactly what they need to hear on how he's going to fix the budget deficit.. I think it's the republican right to not raise the debt ceiling causing us to default on our national debt, our GDP to plumit, the entire world economy to go into recession, our credit rating to again be reduced and all future debt payments to go up significantly due to higher interest rates...Awsome, great idea.. hear hear.. Check your pm. I've sent you my login information for this site. You're so good and accurate at presenting what I'm saying that I think I'll just let you post as me from now on. That way there's no duplication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What I was told is they'll deal if the President makes real concessions. If it's more of the same, his refusal to deal will make them walk away. Put yourself in the R's seat. If they just approve a bunch of more spending with little structural change, they're the same old republicans from W's years. That's what the Tea Party hated. They can't go back to being a big part of the problem in their constitutent's eyes. What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 GOP needs to appeal to somebody besides old white men. Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something? Consequence of paying attention. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something? No one is hating on ld white men, but when you build your entire voting block out of old white men then you have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I write that they have little incentive to cooperate because that's how I'm told they feel. I think they felt burned by past failed negotiations, but beyond that I think there really is a huge debt/tax/entitlement/health reform challenge in the next 12 months and they see no reason to help the president get out of those problems. If he can't give a little in negotiations, they won't cooperate. Feeling burned is probably the case for both sides... But that is beside the point. Do you think that Obama "giving a little" will change incentives enough for GOP to cooperate? One big question is taxes. Obama wants to allow some taxes to go up while GOP wants to keep all tax breaks in place. The GOP has been very set on this issue. Is giving into their demands on taxes necessary part of Obama giving a little for them to cooperate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose.Am I wrong? That's what I'm reading. "Give us the things that we want, but can't win at the ballot box, and we will allow you to save the country from disaster. (And claim that we did it.)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I always thought that all Presidents from either party wanted reall SS reform and real Medicare reform. So how come the only proposals I see from The Right Side are "get rid of them"? Please, tell us your idea of "Real SS Reform". Your idea of a compromise. Where you think the middle is, where we should meet. I'll tell you mine: For the next two years: No change. Beginning three years after passage, SS retirement age goes up six months, every year, till it gets to 70. What that means: If you're currently 63, nothing changes. If you're 62, your retirement age is now 65.5 If you're 61, your retirement age is 66. 59? 67. 53 or younger? It's 70. SS is now covered, with no other changes, for the next 75 years. Unless life expectancy changes a lot, every person who can read is now set for life. (We also haven't completely solved the Medicare problem, but we've put a really big dent in it.) This plan will require virtually no other government changes. (I assume that there will be some. We'll probably need special rules for some professions that we don't want to work till 70. (My example is truck drivers.) But those are minor tweaks, which should only apply to very few people.) Your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose.Am I wrong? I don't know. I'm speculating on tactics. The main theme presented to me was that the well is poisoned, there's no confidence from the right that the President can do his job and thus there's significant doubt that anything will get done. I was told to just expect the blanket sequester to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Re SS reform...raise the retirement age as you say or similar, means test, allow taxes on more income if people can put some portion in "safe" personal retirement vehicles in order to establish better rates of return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something? I am on the right for sure and hate old white men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I am on the right for sure and hate old white men One of my favorite quotes from A Fish Called Wanda: "I am only as God made me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something? I have an honest question for you. No snarkiness intended, just an honest question for you or anyone else who cares to answer. What part of the GOP platform in your opinion, as the GOP stands right now, appeals to minorities, women, middle and lower class people, and younger voters (and anyone else other than old white men) and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The newest reason courtesy of WSJ--he didn't have enough money to make it a fair battle. WSJ: How Race Slipped Away From Romney http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race-slipped-away-from-romney.html The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations. The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Re SS reform...raise the retirement age as you say or similar, means test, allow taxes on more income if people can put some portion in "safe" personal retirement vehicles in order to establish better rates of return. 1) Raise the age, and no other change is needed. 2) I've seen people propose allowing SS taxes on more income, including completely eliminating the ceiling, and I have fairness issues with that idea. Right now, SS is a "retirement system" which is grossly better for people at tle low end of the income scale. People at the bottom end of the pay scale can retire with (as I understand it) almost the same money they made, while working. The guy who paid SS taxes on a $10K income, gets back all the money he paid in, in just a few years. The guy who made $100K (pretty much the ceiling for the tax), put in 10 times the money. He'll get more back, when he retires, but he won;t get anything near 10 times as much. And, under the current system, the guy who makes more than $100K (be that making $250K or $50M), pays the same taxes, and gets the same payout, as the guy who makes $100K. (This, I believe, is the #2 reason why the Right wants to get rid of it, and replace it with a system where the guy who made 10 times as much, when he was working, gets more than 10 times as much, when he retires.) Well, the folks proposing getting rid of the ceiling, what they're proposing is that the guy who makes, say, $10M, will pay a thousand times what the guy who makes $10K. But his payout will still be the same as the guy who made $100K. Me, I can morally justify a system that is grossly tilted in favor of the low wage worker, because SS isn't a retirement system, it's a "retirement minimum wage". It's a floor. I can't morally justify going after the guy who made $10M, saying that he has to pay a thousand times what the minimum-wage guy pays, and that 90% of what he pays will return him zero. ---------- And everybody is allowed to put away money for their own retirement, right now. (Although I would support raising the ceilings on IRA contributions. By a lot.) I have several problems with "I'm going to put money in my IRA instead of paying my taxes". But they're too complicated for a post, even one of my long ones. ---------- And, near as I can tell, when a Republican politician says "SS reform", what he's saying is "I will not accept anything less than a plan for completely getting rid of it, in the next 10 years, and don't ask me how I'm going to pay for it." (And, I have to confess, that's the answer I expected from you, too. I'm surprised.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Feeling burned is probably the case for both sides... But that is beside the point. Do you think that Obama "giving a little" will change incentives enough for GOP to cooperate? One big question is taxes. Obama wants to allow some taxes to go up while GOP wants to keep all tax breaks in place. The GOP has been very set on this issue. Is giving into their demands on taxes necessary part of Obama giving a little for them to cooperate? Speculation only, but I think the R's will "give a little" on taxes only if it's accompanied by major structural reform somewhere. Boehner mentioned flattening the code and lowering rates. The other way is through major entitlement changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Speculation only, but I think the R's will "give a little" on taxes only if it's accompanied by major structural reform somewhere. Boehner mentioned flattening the code and lowering rates. Translation: He'd be willing to consider tax hikes, if they're on poor people, and if rich people get a tax cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Speculation only, but I think the R's will "give a little" on taxes only if it's accompanied by major structural reform somewhere. Boehner mentioned flattening the code and lowering rates. The other way is through major entitlement changes. Not sure how "flattening the code and lowering rates" is giving a little. I agree that entitlement reform needs to happen, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.