Larry Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Duncan I’m not sure what you do for a living, but as a small business owner I was able to add two jobs to the economy under the Bush plan. Under the Kerry plan they are gone unless I make, in the senator’s own words, “a sacrifice for the greater good”. (Leaving aside about a dozen paragraphs of class warefare). [*]Wow. You make enough money, that 2% of your income (actually, 2% of youre income, after the first $200K), is enough to pay two employees? Doing some math, I observe that a minimum-wage, full-time employee makes about (very rough estimate) $10K/year. Two of them would be $20K/year. If 2% of your income (after all deductions, and after the first $200K) is $20K, then that looks to me like you're making $1M/year taxable income. (That also assumes that those two employees make absolutely no profit for your company whatsoever, that they are strictly cash expenses with no offsetting benefit.) But that's right. You didn't hire those two employees because your company made more money with them than it did before. You hired them because you had money left over after taxes and couldn't think of anything better to do with the money. [*]But, I notice that you didn't actually compare the effects of the Bush vs. Kerry plans on this particular tax return. You simply repeated the assertion I was lampooning: That Kerry was a hypocrite for advocating a plan that he says would tax the rich, but it would only raise his own tax bill from 12% to 14%. (And failing to even acknowledge that Bush's plan, which he says is intended to benefit retired seniors, would likely result in her tax burden going from 12% to 2%.) [/list=1] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by The Wicked Wop What I actually find funny about these statements is that they actually suspect Lawyers and accountants are behind this (as far as putting together some kind of highly complex accounting scheme). First off.....I'm as far from a Kerry supporter as you can get. Second, I am an Accountant. Third, these types of tax breaks aren't made up by accountants or lawyers but are available to the everyday person. Fact is Muni bonds are (generally) exempt from Federal Income taxes for anyone. He!! I could go out and by $100K in muni bonds tomorrow and safely earn between 5-7 % annually and pay absolutley no federal tax on them. Better yet, if they are in-state Muni bonds (ie, if you live in MD and buy some form of MD Muni bonds) they probably are not taxable on the state level as well (not 100% sure this is across the board, but pretty sure this is applicable to MD and VA). That being said everyone can piss an moan about her paying taxes at a lower rate on the rest of her income, but the point is it's probably all some form or investment income that is not taxable at the same rates as earned income like the rest of us pay (ie, dividends). It may get everyones panties in a bunch that she is doing it, but it is clearly not some form of accounting scheme or con. See Ross Perot. Where does he hide those billions? And if he didn't have those billions, where would the much needed monies draw from for our cities, counties and states? Bad rich, NO TAX CUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Larry (Leaving aside about a dozen paragraphs of class warefare). [*]Wow. You make enough money, that 2% of your income (actually, 2% of youre income, after the first $200K), is enough to pay two employees? Doing some math, I observe that a minimum-wage, full-time employee makes about (very rough estimate) $10K/year. Two of them would be $20K/year. If 2% of your income (after all deductions, and after the first $200K) is $20K, then that looks to me like you're making $1M/year taxable income. (That also assumes that those two employees make absolutely no profit for your company whatsoever, that they are strictly cash expenses with no offsetting benefit.) But that's right. You didn't hire those two employees because your company made more money with them than it did before. You hired them because you had money left over after taxes and couldn't think of anything better to do with the money. [*]But, I notice that you didn't actually compare the effects of the Bush vs. Kerry plans on this particular tax return. You simply repeated the assertion I was lampooning: That Kerry was a hypocrite for advocating a plan that he says would tax the rich, but it would only raise his own tax bill from 12% to 14%. (And failing to even acknowledge that Bush's plan, which he says is intended to benefit retired seniors, would likely result in her tax burden going from 12% to 2%.) [/list=1] That has to be the weakest response I've ever encountered in a debate. The mere fact that you accuse me of class warfare is laughable on its face. It's clear you have never hired workers or met a payroll (or know much at all about business) if you apply the personal marginal tax rates to the structure of my business (payroll taxes, workers comp, medical insurance, and on, and on). Cartainly I hope the two employess add value to my business; they earn small salaries and a large commision, but do you think they immediatley add to my bottom line? You must be either a government employee or a college professor after throwing out that lame garbage. When I finished my MBA at night while growing my business I ran into many clueless professors that sung your tune. I would give solid real life examples and they would mumble something and change the subject. I evaluated my financial situation, including my net tax burden, and made a strategic decision to try to expand my business. It's called taking a risk, something obviously don't understand. I'm surprised you didn't throw out "you are exploiting your workers for your personal gain". You also avoided addressing the main point of my post. Read it again - it wasn't class warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Art Really? Then how come the founders weren't spending like we are now? If you want to live by their intent, how about addressing how they ran the government after creating it? When you have slave labor, it really helps the bottom line. If the founders intended the country to exist like it did in the 18th century, why did they build in things called laws and amendments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Gichin13 This is truly a stupid article. Haven't you heard commercials to tax free municipal bonds? Low return, but not taxable. It encourages investment in municipal bond offerings, which in turn localities use for a host of purposes. [...] Guess what: you can go buy tax free munis too. Their rate of return blows, but you are not taxed on the income. Go ahead. Look for yourself. Man, Gichin, why did you have to go inject common sense into this thread? I was all ready to make a killing by selling the "secrets of the rich" to people on this board--you know, "how YOU TOO can earn TAX-FREE interests on your investments!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If Kerry get's elected, and somehow get's to enact his proposed tax plan. I will without hesitation have to let go one of my employees to cover the cost of my tax increase. That's the real world. You must not be paying your employees too much in the "real world." How much will your taxes go up, using the actual Kerry plan? Were you profitable under Clinton's plan? (I know, you'll say he doesn't have a plan that you can figure out.) Come on, buddy. Put the numbers on the table. Let's see if you made up that claim just to try to make a point. I've seen 22 year olds on here who said they were going to hire more workers under Bush, so excuse me for being skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward When you have slave labor, it really helps the bottom line. If the founders intended the country to exist like it did in the 18th century, why did they build in things called laws and amendments? Sure it does. Just as having illegal aliens today really help the bottom line. As for your question about what laws and amendments mean and how they might differ from say, judicial fiat, well, I can't help you there. You either get it, or you don't. You, clearly, do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Duncan That has to be the weakest response I've ever encountered in a debate. The mere fact that you accuse me of class warfare is laughable on its face. It's clear you have never hired workers or met a payroll (or know much at all about business) if you apply the personal marginal tax rates to the structure of my business (payroll taxes, workers comp, medical insurance, and on, and on). Here we have two adjacent sentances. the first states that "The mere fact that you accuse me of class warfare is laughable on its face." The second states "I'm better than you because the title on my business card is "owner" instead of "employee". Intresting conflict. Dramatic. Not terribly logical, mind you. But some really good sound bites. You then critisize my ignorance, because I've applied personal tax rates to the formula I used. But, personal tax rates are the only taxes Kerry's said he'll change. I thought this was a discussion of how Kerry's changes will apply to the real world. If you'd like, instead, to discuss the impact of not changing some other part of the tax code, it's OK with me, but I think you'll have a tough case trying to claim that "If Kerry doesn't change (some other part of the tax code) then I'll be forced to . . . " (Now, if you want to claim that Kerry, if elected, would like to change a lot of other taxes, in order to pay for his programs, and that raising taxes on "the rich" is simply the only tax hike he's telling the voters about in advance, then I think you might have a case. But then we're off in the land of "Maybe".) Cartainly I hope the two employess add value to my business; they earn small salaries and a large commision, but do you think they immediatley add to my bottom line? So, you're making a profit from those two employees, but, if the wrong guy gets elected, and imposes a frankly minor increase on your personal taxes, two years from now, then you'll fire them and forgo the profits you've been deriving from them, so that you can keep your personal income up? You must be either a government employee or a college professor after throwing out that lame garbage. When I finished my MBA at night while growing my business I ran into many clueless professors that sung your tune. I would give solid real life examples and they would mumble something and change the subject. Shure glad we're not into class warefare, here. I'm surprised you didn't throw out "you are exploiting your workers for your personal gain". I didn't use the word "exploiting" because I have to assume (barring evidence to the contrairy) that your workers were paid a wage that was, at least, acceptable to them. I deliberatly did, however, point out that they were hired for your personal gain. Not because I think your personal gain is Evil, but because, barring evidence to the contrairy, I have to assume that you administer you business with the intention of making money. The point I was making (and am still making) was that there certainly doesn't appear to be a logical reason, if you're making money on the employees, to assume that you'll get rid of them, simply because The Evil Kerry manages to get through Congress a tax hike of 2% of the profit (not the total expenses) from those employees. (Unless it's a really close decision as to whether to hire them.) (To use algebraic notation: Those employees represent a cost to your company of x. They also represent a profit of y. You're claiming you'll fire them if Kerry changes y by 2% of y? Note: A tax hike of 2% of y cannot change y from a positive to a negative number. And it seems really unlikely that a change of 2% of y will cause you to decide that you'd rather move your x to another investment, especially after you've paid the "startup" costs for the employees, already.) You also avoided addressing the main point of my post. Read it again - it wasn't class warfare. Originally posted by Duncan Well I guess Bush is a moron, like most on the left claim, because he paid around 28% on his income last year, more than double what the candidate who’s “fighting for the middle class” paid. Of course John wants to leave the current structure in place because he wants other people to pay for his programs. His tax burden will remain virtually the same. OK, I’ll give you that it will increase from roughly $600K to $700K. Boy, I bet John is going to have to sell one of his Picassos so he can sacrifice for the greater good. Maybe he’ll just get his tax attorney to shelter more income, we don’t know. Well if Theresa would actually release her full tax returns maybe George could take a look and make the assumptions you put forth in this bazaar rant. Capital gains and dividends should not be taxed, period. If you want to see the American economy redline eliminate the capital gains tax. Every time it has been cut the economy boomed. Clinton actually signed a significant cut in capital gains rates in 1996 (I think it was in 1996 – I might be a couple years off here). Has Kerry proposed raising the capital gains tax? Has he proposed eliminating any tax loopholes? All I’ve heard is that he will raise taxes on those EARNING more than $200K. I guess he wants others to sacrifice for the greater good. You conveniently leave out the fact that the only reason the bill had a sunset provision was to get the support of a few democrats and liberal republicans like Snow and Spector. Liberal senators would have blocked the bill with a filibuster. Bush has said repeatedly he want to make the tax cuts permanent. Kerry howls and moans about “tax cuts for millionaires”, yet as a billionaire (by some estimates) he contributes very little (as a percentage of income) to the treasury. Yes, he is a hypocrite, and I find it amazing that you are so quick to rush to his defense on this one. Would you not agree that Kerry is what you would truly call “the rich”. Ask someone making $250K with four kids, two cars, a mortgage, insurance, college funds, savings, food, student loan payments, clothing, etc. if they are rich. Heck, drive by their homes and tell me if they are rich. It might surprise you. Now drive by John’s $3.7 million Fox Chapel Compound, his $4.9 million Idaho Ski Chalet, his $4.7 million Georgetown Brownstone, his $9.2 million Nantucket retreat, or his $6.9 million Beacon Hill home and tell me the family making $250K deserves to be taxed more than that populist fraud. He is so clearly a hypocrite I’m shocked anyone would defend him, let alone bring up the Bush plan that eliminated the marriage tax penalty, increased the child credit, lowered rates on everyone that pays income taxes and also provided many much needed small businesss tax breaks. Guess who voted against those tax cuts for the middle class. I’m not sure what you do for a living , but as a small business owner I was able to add two jobs to the economy under the Bush plan. Under the Kerry plan they are gone unless I make, in the senator’s own words, “a sacrifice for the greater good”. I specifically stated that I’m not opposed the Heinz family taking every legal deduction possible. As a libertarian I would argue that they pay an exorbitant amount in federal taxes. What I can’t stomach is John looking in the camera and telling me I need to make sacrifices for the greater good and vilifying those of us that actually work for a living as greedy fat cats. I’m voting libertarian this election cycle as I always do, but if there ever was a candidate that has no right playing the class warfare card it’s John Kerry. Until he actually makes a significant sacrifice instead of preaching about it he is a hypocrite. It doesn’t get any clearer than that, right? I guess I was mistaken about the "class warefare" statements. My point staill stands. Kerry says he'll raise taxes on "the rich". If his plan is enacted, Teresa's tax bill will go from 12% to 13% or so. Kerry's a hypocrite because he's not paying enough taxes (but wants to raise them, by a tiny amount). Bush wants to eliminate capital gains to help "seniors and retirees". If his plan is enacted, Teresa's tax bill will go from 12% to about 2%. Bush is an honest man. You're really ticked off that Kerry pays less taxes (as a percentage) than you do. But you won't vote for a guy who'll raise those taxes because he's a hypocrite. You have no problem with a guy who will virtually eliminate those taxes that they do pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 What she did is legal but at the same time to make it seem like she is no different than any one else who wants to keep their money is what irks others. Edwards using SBA to not pay taxes a 15 million salary from ambulance chasing is technically legal but will invite a visit from the IRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward You must not be paying your employees too much in the "real world." How much will your taxes go up, using the actual Kerry plan? Were you profitable under Clinton's plan? (I know, you'll say he doesn't have a plan that you can figure out.) Come on, buddy. Put the numbers on the table. Let's see if you made up that claim just to try to make a point. I've seen 22 year olds on here who said they were going to hire more workers under Bush, so excuse me for being skeptical. According to my accountant, if Kerry get's to enact his tax proposals, it will cost my business appx 8k a year. I will not be able to afford to pay that AND keep all 3 of my support staff. Each of whom make between 22-26 per year. So the people John Kerry CLAIMS to want to help, will absolutely be the ones who face the greatest burden under his plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.