1.76 trillion dollars (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, MOP.

I totally understand the resentment towards people who don't work but try to leech off the system, but when we talk about people who get up every single day to go to work full-time they deserve to make enough for the basics (housing, food, health care) so they don't have to work multiple jobs.

Regardless of the work they do?

Spoiler

I try not to get mixed up in this stuff anymore. I just can't help myself.

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

 

[cstu]

I don't know why solutions always end up on the extreme end. Let's just tax them so they have less. Let's tax international financial transactions, let's end hiding money in offshore havens. You know what you don't need 3 billion, you could live with one.

Then let's use that money for 3 things:

1. provide health care for everyone (maybe even some safe drinking water). let's invest in preventative treatment as well and drive costs down

2. ensure those that work are compensated fairly and can live a good life

3. ensure that those that want to work their way up the change can by making training/universities/colleges affordable to everyone

 

[heropretend]

Nobody "deserves" anything.

This country gives nearly every person ample opportunity to make something of themselves.

So sick of this entitlement tone our country has taken on.

Go get a useful college degree and report back to me if you can't get a ####### job. My company has to use Visa students to fill out our labor force because lazy American kids don't want to work or properly educate themselves.

As another poster mentioned, you're focusing on the opposite extreme end of the wealth spectrum. Why?

I'm not focusing on anything. I was reacting to the word "deserves" which was used in a prior post.

Nobody deserves anything and this country did not become the power that it is based on an entitlement mindset. As a matter of fact, one can argue it has regressed since we've increased entitlements.

Does it make sense if you change "deserves" to "need" as in:

People who work full time jobs NEED to support themselves to contribute.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

 

[cstu]

I'm not focusing on anything. I was reacting to the word "deserves" which was used in a prior post.



Nobody deserves anything and this country did not become the power that it is based on an entitlement mindset. As a matter of fact, one can argue it has regressed since we've increased entitlements.

Do we deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How about the free of speech? Right to bear arms? Etc, etc?

 

[cstu]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

 

[TripItUp]

I don't know why solutions always end up on the extreme end. Let's just tax them so they have less. Let's tax international financial transactions, let's end hiding money in offshore havens. You know what you don't need 3 billion, you could live with one.

Then let's use that money for 3 things:

1. provide health care for everyone (maybe even some safe drinking water). let's invest in preventative treatment as well and drive costs down

2. ensure those that work are compensated fairly and can live a good life

3. ensure that those that want to work their way up the change can by making training/universities/colleges affordable to everyone

Nobody "deserves" anything.

This country gives nearly every person ample opportunity to make something of themselves.

So sick of this entitlement tone our country has taken on.

Go get a useful college degree and report back to me if you can't get a ####### job. My company has to use Visa students to fill out our labor force because lazy American kids don't want to work or properly educate themselves.

As another poster mentioned, you're focusing on the opposite extreme end of the wealth spectrum. Why?

I'm not focusing on anything. I was reacting to the word "deserves" which was used in a prior post.

Nobody deserves anything and this country did not become the power that it is based on an entitlement mindset. As a matter of fact, one can argue it has regressed since we've increased entitlements.

Does it make sense if you change "deserves" to "need" as in:

People who work full time jobs NEED to support themselves to contribute.

yes, makes more sense. Makes the argument more quantifiable...a true macro economics discussion.

 

[TripItUp]

I'm not focusing on anything. I was reacting to the word "deserves" which was used in a prior post.



Nobody deserves anything and this country did not become the power that it is based on an entitlement mindset. As a matter of fact, one can argue it has regressed since we've increased entitlements.

Do we deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How about the free of speech? Right to bear arms? Etc, etc?

Don't create a side argument, obviously was speaking to entitlements or "help" from the govt.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

 

[jomar]

the poor people should pool their $1.76 trillion and buy a sports franchise or two

 

[E Street Brat]

America's three biggest banks -- JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC) -- earned more than $6 billion just from ATM and overdraft fees last year, according to an analysis by SNL Financial and CNNMoney.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/14/investing/atm-overdraft-fees/index.html?section=money_topstories

Well if the study was done by Saturday Night Live, then it must be true.

 

[cstu]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Not so low that you need them to show up five days a week or you go out of business, is it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Not so low that you need them to show up five days a week or you go out of business, is it?

Low enough that if one person won't do it then another will. The chances I won't find someone to do the job are pretty remote.If you won't do the job because you want to live on your own then I'll hire someone who will do the job who doesn't have that stipulation.

 

[jonessed]

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, MOP.

I totally understand the resentment towards people who don't work but try to leech off the system, but when we talk about people who get up every single day to go to work full-time they deserve to make enough for the basics (housing, food, health care) so they don't have to work multiple jobs.

Regardless of the work they do?

Spoiler

I try not to get mixed up in this stuff anymore. I just can't help myself.

Yes, regardless of the job.If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you define a "living wage"? I don't think someone working fast food or doing basic manual labor as a long-term career should be guaranteed a single-family home, car, retirement, access to the best healthcare, etc. It's attainable in some parts of the country, but there are a lot of areas that are simply too expensive for that. If you want more, you need to strive higher than that.

I would prefer more effort be spent on educating people that want more as opposed to subsidizing people that are comfortable in their status quo. Minimum wage should not be a career goal.

 

[Van Dyman]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Not so low that you need them to show up five days a week or you go out of business, is it?

Low enough that if one person won't do it then another will. The chances I won't find someone to do the job are pretty remote.If you won't do the job because you want to live on your own then I'll hire someone who will do the job who doesn't have that stipulation.

Hypothetically, if you could pay him enough to live on his own and that had ZERO effect on your own bottom line...would you?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Take the middle man out of it. Using money as a proxy for labor sometimes confuses the issue.

Can you sit down your landlord, grocer, doctor, and pharmacist and - assuming they all have a demand for it at all - offer to "insert low skill labor here" in exchange for their stuff/services? Is that a fair trade?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Hypothetically, if you could pay him enough to live on his own and that had ZERO effect on your own bottom line...would you?

Hypothetically? Sure.I'm not sure that's a scenario that's anything more than hypothetical though.

 

[jonessed]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

So 40 hours of the lowest productive labor should be exchangeable for a place of your own, the food you require, and all the doctors and medicine you need?

Not so low that you need them to show up five days a week or you go out of business, is it?

Low enough that if one person won't do it then another will. The chances I won't find someone to do the job are pretty remote.If you won't do the job because you want to live on your own then I'll hire someone who will do the job who doesn't have that stipulation.

Hypothetically, if you could pay him enough to live on his own and that had ZERO effect on your own bottom line...would you?

That depends on how much I value him as an employee.

 

[Van Dyman]

Hypothetically, if you could pay him enough to live on his own and that had ZERO effect on your own bottom line...would you?

Hypothetically? Sure.I'm not sure that's a scenario that's anything more than hypothetical though.

Agree. Not even sure why it crossed my mind. Perhaps the business owner would be less focused on his bottom line if money weren't so concentrated in other parts of the economy. Or maybe not. Not everyone is driven by money.

 

[Valjean]

The last Powerball jackpot was $1.3b, there are 300m people in this country. If you gave everyone in this country an equal share of the jackpot that would be $4.3m each. Boom national debt solved!

Seems to me you are using Obamacare math here. $1,300,000,000 / $300,000,000 = $4.33. Not even enough for a $5.00 Foot long sub at Subway.

It's from something that went viral on Facebook last week.

Also, Subway doesn't do the $5 footlong anymore. Now it's a $5 6-inch and chips. Inflation has hit food hard. Thanks Obama!

A big Duh for me. Sorry Shady

 

[heropretend]

Hypothetically, if you could pay him enough to live on his own and that had ZERO effect on your own bottom line...would you?

Hypothetically? Sure.I'm not sure that's a scenario that's anything more than hypothetical though.

Agree. Not even sure why it crossed my mind. Perhaps the business owner would be less focused on his bottom line if money weren't so concentrated in other parts of the economy. Or maybe not. Not everyone is driven by money.

The really rich are far more focused on ego and power than on consumption and happiness. The problem might be that too many rich count their ego in money. If you could get the rich to exchange money for an ego stroking it'll be all good.

 

[bostonfred]

So you want billionaires who are capable of becoming multi-billionaires to lose all incentive to like, produce anything ever?

This is interesting. At what percent tax rate do you think people lose all incentive to produce any more? At what percent do they begin to lose incentive? Follow up question, do you think you pay a higher or lower percentage of your income in taxes than billionaires do? Have you lost all incentive to work?

 

[heropretend]

I don't know why solutions always end up on the extreme end. Let's just tax them so they have less. Let's tax international financial transactions, let's end hiding money in offshore havens. You know what you don't need 3 billion, you could live with one.

Then let's use that money for 3 things:

1. provide health care for everyone (maybe even some safe drinking water). let's invest in preventative treatment as well and drive costs down

2. ensure those that work are compensated fairly and can live a good life

3. ensure that those that want to work their way up the change can by making training/universities/colleges affordable to everyone

Nobody "deserves" anything.

This country gives nearly every person ample opportunity to make something of themselves.

So sick of this entitlement tone our country has taken on.

Go get a useful college degree and report back to me if you can't get a ####### job. My company has to use Visa students to fill out our labor force because lazy American kids don't want to work or properly educate themselves.

As another poster mentioned, you're focusing on the opposite extreme end of the wealth spectrum. Why?

I'm not focusing on anything. I was reacting to the word "deserves" which was used in a prior post.

Nobody deserves anything and this country did not become the power that it is based on an entitlement mindset. As a matter of fact, one can argue it has regressed since we've increased entitlements.

Does it make sense if you change "deserves" to "need" as in:

People who work full time jobs NEED to support themselves to contribute.

yes, makes more sense. Makes the argument more quantifiable...a true macro economics discussion.

These 2 sides are so extreme. On the one hand some guys want to limit billionaires to having one billion dollars. I sincerely don't think the world would be better off with 10 billionaires instead of a single 10 billionaire. Also we don't want to discourage a billionaire's inclination to investing in multi-billion dollar projects that ultimately provide jobs and value to the world. Humans are wired to push the limits of growth and world consumption is still growing despite fewer hands having more assets. You can argue how well off everyone could be, but in the US, nobody starves here and anybody can take out a college loan.

On the other hand, some guys think welfare and entitlements and goverment is a waste of resources. They see people who don't work and don't starve but they ignore that they don't save either. The poor aren't rich off you, they're buying all the stuff from companies we own in our index funds. Practically all entitlements funnel back into the economy because the poors propensity to save is less than zero after credit. Cutting all entitlement would lead to capital destruction because the middle class can't make up the lost spending on consumption from the poors. I mean, stocks are either gonna get crushed and we're never gonna retire or me and TRIPITUP gonna eat a bags of doritos and beans til we die to support ourselves.

 

[heropretend]

So you want billionaires who are capable of becoming multi-billionaires to lose all incentive to like, produce anything ever?

This is interesting. At what percent tax rate do you think people lose all incentive to produce any more? At what percent do they begin to lose incentive?Follow up question, do you think you pay a higher or lower percentage of your income in taxes than billionaires do? Have you lost all incentive to work?

I don't know. My guess is 50 percent. But let's change the word here from incentive to motivation. I'll be back later tonight, but what do you think?

If you asked me, if I was a billionaire with my current situation and lifestyle if I'd lose all incentive to work if every dollar over a billion was taxed or transferred than the answer is yes, eff all work over $1 billion. I think obviously you lose all incentive if every dollar over a billion is taken away. Motivation wise, this depends too much on lifestyle and who or what you relate to. No one here is a billionaire after all.

 

[bostonfred]

You are already taxed at a higher rate than billionaires. Why would they lose incentive if they were taxed at the same rate you are? You haven't.

 

[Shula-holic]

You are already taxed at a higher rate than billionaires. Why would they lose incentive if they were taxed at the same rate you are? You haven't.

Are you referring to capital gains rates? I'm saying the following not because I believe it relates to you but just in general. I think the general public doesn't understand taxes and the difference in incremental rates and cap gains. It's easy to throw the rhetoric around, but changing incremental rates or adding a tax bracket would change nothing in those regards. In many cases people making less than a million dollars per year are paying over 50 cents on their next incremental dollar of income. If they are small business owners and pay self employment tax (medicare/SS) and state income taxes as well.

 

[jonessed]

So you want billionaires who are capable of becoming multi-billionaires to lose all incentive to like, produce anything ever?

This is interesting. At what percent tax rate do you think people lose all incentive to produce any more? At what percent do they begin to lose incentive?Follow up question, do you think you pay a higher or lower percentage of your income in taxes than billionaires do? Have you lost all incentive to work?

In the US? When they can invest elsewhere and get a better rate of return. Wealth is easily moved.

It's not really as simple as bumping up the capital gains rate to 40%. At least not in the current tax environment. If we wanted to really tax the wealthy we would have to steamline the entire tax system.

 

[bostonfred]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

 

[bostonfred]

So you want billionaires who are capable of becoming multi-billionaires to lose all incentive to like, produce anything ever?

This is interesting. At what percent tax rate do you think people lose all incentive to produce any more? At what percent do they begin to lose incentive?Follow up question, do you think you pay a higher or lower percentage of your income in taxes than billionaires do? Have you lost all incentive to work?

In the US? When they can invest elsewhere and get a better rate of return. Wealth is easily moved.

It's not really as simple as bumping up the capital gains rate to 40%. At least not in the current tax environment. If we wanted to really tax the wealthy we would have to steamline the entire tax system.

This is a different argument altogether. I'm not arguing in favor of increasing the capital gains rate to 40%, by the way. I haven't argued for our against any tax proposal in this thread at all. I'm only trying to have an honest discussion and to do that we need to strip away cliche arguments that are false on their face.

 

[Shula-holic]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

If not capital gains rates, what other tax rates on a wealthy person's income are they paying less than anyone here?

When it comes to self employed individuals I assume when you use the term "revenue", you are meaning earnings. I'm a small business owner and also a CPA. I'll be happy to forward you some numbers showing where at certain levels of income a business owner making $400,000 per year can pay over 50% on his next dollar.

 

[jonessed]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

I don't see the point in mixing small business owners and billionaires. Small business owners is a much larger and more diverse group. Their tax advantages/disadvantages and profitability are going to vary quite a bit.

 

[jonessed]

So you want billionaires who are capable of becoming multi-billionaires to lose all incentive to like, produce anything ever?

This is interesting. At what percent tax rate do you think people lose all incentive to produce any more? At what percent do they begin to lose incentive?Follow up question, do you think you pay a higher or lower percentage of your income in taxes than billionaires do? Have you lost all incentive to work?

In the US? When they can invest elsewhere and get a better rate of return. Wealth is easily moved.

It's not really as simple as bumping up the capital gains rate to 40%. At least not in the current tax environment. If we wanted to really tax the wealthy we would have to steamline the entire tax system.

This is a different argument altogether. I'm not arguing in favor of increasing the capital gains rate to 40%, by the way. I haven't argued for our against any tax proposal in this thread at all. I'm only trying to have an honest discussion and to do that we need to strip away cliche arguments that are false on their face.

How do you propose to tax billionaires more? What would be the vehicle for that?

 

[humpback]

You guys are arguing other things. I tend to agree with most of them. What I disagree with is the idea that "increasing taxes on the rich" would make them lose "all incentive". The fact that the truly rich pay a lower tax rate on their income - whether through capital gains or other taxes - than you do clearly shows that they would not lose all incentive. That's the rhetoric that needs to be debunked.

I also disagree that small business owners pay more in taxes than I do. They may pay more in taxes on the money they take directly from the consumer than I take directly from my employer, but only because my employer has already paid taxes on that income as well. If we are comparing apples to apples, I'm being double taxed on the revenue I bring in for my employer, whether I own some, none or all of the company. It just doesn't seem that way because I take for granted that I work for a company and that company is supposed to pay taxes. But the same is true for the small business owner. Just because he owns a greater percentage of his business than i do of mine doesn't mean he's paying double taxes and I'm not.

If you'd prefer to think about it this way, he's being taxed the same as I am as am employee, and his business is being taxed the same as I am on revenue from the business he owns. It just so happens he owns a higher percentage of his business than I do.

I can understand why small business owners and billionaires would want people to think they pay to much in taxes and increasing their taxes would make them fold up shop but these are just lies they tell to make people support their political agendas.

 

[bostonfred]

I'm not proposing anything.

 

[Mr.Pack]

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, MOP.

I totally understand the resentment towards people who don't work but try to leech off the system, but when we talk about people who get up every single day to go to work full-time they deserve to make enough for the basics (housing, food, health care) so they don't have to work multiple jobs.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[cstu]

I'm a small business owner and also a CPA. I'll be happy to forward you some numbers showing where at certain levels of income a business owner making $400,000 per year can pay over 50% on his next dollar.

As CPA you know are many ways for a small business owner to reduce their taxable income, especially at that level.

 

[Shula-holic]

I'm a small business owner and also a CPA. I'll be happy to forward you some numbers showing where at certain levels of income a business owner making $400,000 per year can pay over 50% on his next dollar.

As CPA you know are many ways for a small business owner to reduce their taxable income, especially at that level.

I'm open to good ideas before I file this year if you can help me. Other than true business expenses or putting aside money in a SEP, which is an IRA, I don't really see that there is. What I report on my taxes is what my business makes. There's not some magic loophole out there that I've ever seen. But again, I am open to hearing them.

 

[Mr.Pack]

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, MOP.

I totally understand the resentment towards people who don't work but try to leech off the system, but when we talk about people who get up every single day to go to work full-time they deserve to make enough for the basics (housing, food, health care) so they don't have to work multiple jobs.

Regardless of the work they do?

Spoiler

I try not to get mixed up in this stuff anymore. I just can't help myself.

I think so. My feeling is if you are working full-time, you deserve a living wage.

Might be the liberal in me coming out, but I don't have a problem with that.

 

[humpback]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

What kind/quality/quantity of housing, food, and health care, and for how many people? What else should it "cover"?

 

[bostonfred]

When it comes to self employed individuals I assume when you use the term "revenue", you are meaning earnings.

An accountant who owns his own business does work and charges his client $100, he gets taxed twice. When an accountant working at h and r block charges his client the same 100 dollars, those hundred dollars are also taxed twice. Once shows up on his w2, once doesn't. But the money earned for the work he does is still taxed twice.

It's disingenuous to say the small business owner is being taxed more than the employee on the same income. The small business owner is being taxed once as a business and once as an individual and is not paying more in taxes for either than the next guy who is taxed once as an individual but also owns shares of apple that are worth less than they would be if apple didn't pay taxes.

Lots of people own equity in companies that pay taxes. It's just more visible to people who own their own companies because they see the taxes that their equity investment had to pay.

It is a lie to say they pay more in taxes. But it's a convenient lie that small business owners like to tell because they want to pay less in taxes. They are wisely promoting their own political agenda. It doesn't make it any less of a lie.

 

[shadrap]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

Start with Cuba comrade, then head east.

 

[Shula-holic]

When it comes to self employed individuals I assume when you use the term "revenue", you are meaning earnings.

An accountant who owns his own business does work and charges his client $100, he gets taxed twice.When an accountant working at h and r block charges his client the same 100 dollars, those hundred dollars are also taxed twice. Once shows up on his w2, once doesn't. But the money earned for the work he does is still taxed twice.

It's disingenuous to say the small business owner is being taxed more than the employee on the same income. The small business owner is being taxed once as a business and once as an individual and is not paying more in taxes for either than the next guy who is taxed once as an individual but also owns shares of apple that are worth less than they would be if apple didn't pay taxes.

Lots of people own equity in companies that pay taxes. It's just more visible to people who own their own companies because they see the taxes that their equity investment had to pay.

It is a lie to say they pay more in taxes. But it's a convenient lie that small business owners like to tell because they want to pay less in taxes. They are wisely promoting their own political agenda. It doesn't make it any less of a lie.

How am I taxed twice for what I make in my own business? I honestly don't understand the argument you're making. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying. Just to make sure, you understand that the self employed individual files his business income under Schedule C and that flows over on his Form 1040, correct? So therefore, the business income and his personal income are one and the same. It is not taxed twice unless I'm missing something or failing to understand.

 

[humpback]

When it comes to self employed individuals I assume when you use the term "revenue", you are meaning earnings.

An accountant who owns his own business does work and charges his client $100, he gets taxed twice.When an accountant working at h and r block charges his client the same 100 dollars, those hundred dollars are also taxed twice. Once shows up on his w2, once doesn't. But the money earned for the work he does is still taxed twice.

It's disingenuous to say the small business owner is being taxed more than the employee on the same income. The small business owner is being taxed once as a business and once as an individual and is not paying more in taxes for either than the next guy who is taxed once as an individual but also owns shares of apple that are worth less than they would be if apple didn't pay taxes.

Lots of people own equity in companies that pay taxes. It's just more visible to people who own their own companies because they see the taxes that their equity investment had to pay.

It is a lie to say they pay more in taxes. But it's a convenient lie that small business owners like to tell because they want to pay less in taxes. They are wisely promoting their own political agenda. It doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Wat?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

1,760,000,000,000.00

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know enough about this when I was in my 20s and early 30s running around. It saddens me that it is so difficult to make masses of people understand what probably needs to happen at some point. The reason the super rich don't fear much is there really is not a threat of revolution. We have a very soft and lazy society at the bottom where welfare has created a mindset for many of why go work? And then you have the far worse situation with the working poor. People going to work everyday, perhaps working 2 jobs to make ends meet and even that is not enough.

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Great topic Fred, I hope there will be some meaningful discussion in here. I was called a cutthroat capitalist in school, sung all the traditional business ways but my views and stance have greatly changed over the last 5 years I would say. We have to find a way to bridge the gap and at least make a healthy wage increase for all and let Wall Street know their bully tactics will not be tolerated any more.

You say your mindset has changed, but your immediate response to Fred's post blames poor people for be lazy, soft, welfare leechers.

No TGunz, I have a lot of empathy for those that slave away at low wage jobs vs just throwing in the towel and staying home. No pity for those that will not work, lots of pity for those trying to work and can't afford rent, a car, food, and provide for a child, you just can't do it on minimum wage or really anything much less than about $30k-$50k a year depending on region of the country. We have to stop demonizing folks who work and can afford to eat at McDs daily, that's not much of a lifestyle IMO.

Please stop trying to box me into whatever suits you. I mean you can do it but I am going to continue to push back hard. Would like to get past it and move to more meaningful discussion. Also I have to say TG, I'm disappointed since last I was around, it seems you have gotten worse(?) on some issues. I used to know a guy who was always wanting to time the RE market and was working hard on law school, now it just reads like a social worker who feels anyone with a job should give half away in taxes and such. Educate my errors but it's difficult to post with you at the moment. Trying to get a read on what's real and what's schtick.

 

[cstu]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

What kind/quality/quantity of housing, food, and health care, and for how many people? What else should it "cover"?

What exactly is over the top? Should a person working full-time be homeless? Be hungry? Die because they can't afford health care?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are thinking. My idea is the very basics - a small one bedroom apartment, enough money to buy food at a grocery store and not go hungry, and health care when they need it. If you aren't willing to pay someone enough so they can afford to live then you shouldn't have employees.

 

[Shula-holic]

Small business owners are not all c corps. But in that case you're again talking about a different animal than the guy at an incorporated small business.

Most small businesses aren't C-Corps at all (I can provide a link if necessary), they are the Schedule C type that I'm referring to. They are different animals entirely. We can get off into the weeds of accounting for C-Corps, but it's a discussion you shouldn't delve into unless you've got an accounting or finance degree and is probably above the level of discussion anyone here would care to see. It's not something even accountants see or deal with daily unless they specialize in that area.

I still ask, how is a Schedule C small business taxed twice?

 

[bostonfred]

small business owners

Schedule C small business

I misunderstood. Apologies.

 

[shadrap]

Yes, regardless of the job.

If you give up 40 hours of your life every single week helping someone make a profit then you deserve a living wage.

How do you qualify "living"?

Like I said...housing, food, and health care.

What kind/quality/quantity of housing, food, and health care, and for how many people? What else should it "cover"?

What exactly is over the top? Should a person working full-time be homeless? Be hungry? Die because they can't afford health care?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are thinking. My idea is the very basics - a small one bedroom apartment, enough money to buy food at a grocery store and not go hungry, and health care when they need it. If you aren't willing to pay someone enough so they can afford to live then you shouldn't have employees.

Again this is the Cuba/Russian, etc. utopia. It is not up to me to provide a #######g living for an employee. It is up to the worker to provide for himself. Doesn't like the damn job, then get another. Doesn't like that one then get two more jobs. Don't like those then get your #### fired & get food stamps. Socialism is a fine experiment that went terribly wrong. You may have some fine intentions but a poor grasp of history.

 

[shadrap]

Maybe should have phrased the previous a little different. Just think I'm not responsible for a person's economic fate-they are.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

We should not have full time employees working at jobs where the companies are showing them how to apply for food stamps. It's ridiculous.

Exactly, MOP.

I totally understand the resentment towards people who don't work but try to leech off the system, but when we talk about people who get up every single day to go to work full-time they deserve to make enough for the basics (housing, food, health care) so they don't have to work multiple jobs.

My stance 10 years ago was everyone that was poor was lazy in some way or the other, obviously having to be one of them or work in that environment because we all know I had a huge advantage over most of these folks. And working side by side with so many you start to realize how pitiful it is to see folks working hard, much harder physically than most of us would want to.

I would say the entire middle class makes up about 50% of the population from the stats I have read. Then the bottom 40% is your poor but at least half of those folks have jobs, millions of people cannot afford to live and they have a full time job, that's just wrong end of story. You are not going to shut me up from now until the cows come home. I want a new party in this country, the worker's party. My party includes lots of people, in fact I would say almost anyone with a job who has a boss and is punching a clock, I want you in my party. The folks making $100k-$250k won't be that many so the big thrust of folks in the $30k-$100k range depending on region of the country. We have got to unite people and stop this nonsense of turning the guy who makes $35k against the guy making $70k, it's bananas.

And stop making middle class folks feel guilty about everything. Stop making working folks pay for all your nonsense.