OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

I still don't get no one talks about separating personal and corporate
income tax -- it's like Republicans know that without the claim of
"hurting small business" they have nothing to stand on. BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

On Sep 30, 5:34*am, jeff wrote:
On 9/29/2010 9:48 PM, wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:23 -0400, *wrote:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...small-business....

Rational? *Seemingly. *Fair? *Who knows. *And the unasked question: Accurate?
Not in the least.

HTH,
R

and how is that guy "inaccurate"? *at least he goes about the question
and process without the divisive phony rhetoric being seized upon by the
anti-anything-obama politicians.

jeff

Obama has been a chucklehead ever since he came on the scene. He is an
empty suit
devoid of any executive experience or common sense. He won the
election ( & "noble" peace
prize ) based on platitudes and intangible concepts. He truly is
lighter than air.

Barak Obama is living proof that when the going gets tough, the
lightweights go on vacation.
He and his mindless followers all chant oBAMa...um, um, um.... before
they drink the Kool Aid.......

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

On 2010-09-30 09:19:12 -0400, D. LaCourse said:

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

Sorry. Hit the send button somehow.....

Anyway, my kids are running the supermarket and they take about a $250k
profit every year. But their taxes are horrible, including
Massachusetts. If they are taxes further, they simply won't spend as
much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right. Sure, go ahead and tax the Soroses, Gates, Kerrys, etc, but
leave the little business man alone.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

BTW, gold is at its highest. When mistrust of government goes down,
gold goes up. Now there is a bill out there that would require
everyone who buys or sells more than $600 of gold to file a form. Why
does the government want to track who own gold?

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in. They will be paying for this mess for
their entire lives. The times they are a-changing, and the change
ain't good.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:20:26 -0400, D. LaCourse
wrote:

On 2010-09-30 09:19:12 -0400, D. LaCourse said:

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

Sorry. Hit the send button somehow.....

Anyway, my kids are running the supermarket and they take about a $250k
profit every year. But their taxes are horrible, including
Massachusetts. If they are taxes further, they simply won't spend as
much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right. Sure, go ahead and tax the Soroses, Gates, Kerrys, etc, but
leave the little business man alone.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

BTW, gold is at its highest. When mistrust of government goes down,
gold goes up. Now there is a bill out there that would require
everyone who buys or sells more than $600 of gold to file a form. Why
does the government want to track who own gold?

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in. They will be paying for this mess for
their entire lives. The times they are a-changing, and the change
ain't good.

Dave


Dave
Perhaps
You and I agree on something or I at least agree a bit w your
grandchildren in that I have absolutely no trust nor faith in the US
Federal government

I pay my taxes because mainly I dio not want to go to prison!
I dio nNot like waht they do w my money in my name

Fred

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Jon.

On 2010-09-30 16:35:33 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring.

No it isn't, Jon. If they are taxed *more* then they won't be able to
reinvest in the stores or in new people. They work very hard for that
money, seven days a week, sometime until 9 pm at night. More taxes
will means less money, less money means less investment. Hang the
millionaires, but not the $250k/year folks. They don't deserve to be
punished with more taxes simply because they work hard and achieve.


Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Are you saying you are an underachiever? Not my fault you can't make
money at a small business. My kids did and they don't have any letters
after their name.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

And that is GOOD? It is time to stop the foolishness in Washington.
It is time to stop paying off the unions and everyone else that helped
get them elexted. Enough is enough.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Notice I said "you and me?" At least they realize that I am not
pro-Obama or approve of this spending spree this idiot is taking us on.
He just gave another $20B to foreign aid. That money could have been
spend HERE. The rest of the world hates us because of our freedoms and
our riches and I doubt very much giving more money to them will amount
to a hill of beans.
Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%? According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year - where does your "sympathy" begin?

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Um, what's this "we" ****, Kemosabe? I work _hard_ to earn what I earn (and
yes, I readily admit it - I "play" pretty hard, too, but I do it on money I've
earned) and I put my own capital at risk when and where necessary. I do not
feel the need to further subsidize things for those who simply don't wish to pay
for what they want - _want_ - not _need_ and are unable to provide it for
themselves. For example, I've never financed a car or any other consumer
good(s), yet plenty of folks finance darned near everything and do so based upon
_want_, not _need_.

Many folks in the US make such a big deal about how well many European countries
treat folks, but in France, for example, if you earn anything, you pay into the
kitty, and even with that, they've still managed to spend themselves into
problems. Most folks accept the fact that no one will just come right out and
buy them a TV, a car, etc., yet somehow they think that others should pay for
their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really
shouldn't be government-supplied, like health care or retirement, the small
portion of society who simply cannot provide for themselves excepted).

TC,
R

Jon.

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them. "To
whom much is given, much will be expected."

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it. The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really

I'm with you there; I'm all for less government services, but the
politicians aren't (on either side), and as long as we're going to
promise services, we (corporately) better pay for them...

Take care,

Jon.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 3:25*pm, wrote:

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? *Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? *Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%?

Lot's of people have described the merits of progressive tax rates.
You can choose to reject those explanations but I accept them.

I don't agree with them, and certainly not to the point that the majority pay
little or no taxes. But even if the US must have progressive income taxes, why
shouldn't it require that everyone at least pony up _something_?

"To whom much is given, much will be expected."

Um, well, apparently not. Much is "given" by the US government, using tax
dollars, and _very_ little is expected of those who receive it (I'm speaking
individuals and "entitlements" - even with the bailouts, something was
expected). And while you may consider your salary as something "given" to you,
I consider what I earn as, well, not given, but rather, earned.

*According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year

I didn't say I was the business owner, just that I have personal
experience with it.

True enough, you didn't, but frankly, and I don't mean to start anything here,
if you didn't own it, then your "personal experience" was merely as an observer,
however keenly you observed, and at the end of the day, that's not anywhere
close to having both the responsibility and if any, the reward.

The business provided a living wage to its
proprietors and its employees, but the nature of the particular
business was that there never would be spectacular profits, and
conscious decisions were made to stay small. Money isn't everything in
life.

No, it isn't, but as you said, it was a conscious choice. That should not
exempt them from paying what a larger and/or more-profitable business owner
should pay.

I work _hard_ to earn what I earn

I have no idea what you do or how much you make (and don't really care
to know), and I'm sure that you do work hard; so do 11-year-old
Pakistani brick-makers for their two dollars a day. Frankly I don't
think many of us in the first world _earn_ our pay; yes we get _paid_
it, but that doesn't mean we _earn_ it. Lot's of people around the
world work just as hard and get paid a lot less. That goes for my
salary (public domain if you care to find it), and exponentially so
for the overpaid corporate CEOs we read about in the papers (I'm not
at all implying that you fit that category; like I said I have no idea
what you make).

Good points. To those who make 2 dollars a day, 25K a year is 30-plus times,
much more than your 10 times, what they make, so again, at what point does your
sympathy begin? At what income level should "business owners" by taxed 40% on
their personal income? And what about wage-earners? If someone earns 25K, why
shouldn't they be taxed just like someone who make earns 250K?

Let me ask you this: if I let you set my tax rate, would you let me set yours?
Would you let me set yours after you set mine? You know, sorta like the old
deal about sharing - one person cuts the sandwich, the other gets to pick their
portion first.

TC,
R