[Lisa GT]

Originally Posted by caballo

Butt.... figure it out....

TMI...TMI...I got it, I got it....say no more!


(lalalalalalalalala)

[caballo]

Originally Posted by Lisa GT

TMI...TMI...I got it, I got it....say no more!


(lalalalalalalalala)

:l ol:

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Therian

What if that money goes directly to paying down the national debt?

Our problem isn’t revenue it’s spending

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by dew22

Our problem isn’t revenue it’s spending

It's both.

No more bailouts for corporations. Not when so many individuals are in trouble. Besides we don't have the money.

[GT40XStang9]

Originally Posted by dew22

isn’t

Originally Posted by jikelly

It's

Why are your apostrophes different?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Why are your apostrophes different?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????

[svttech76]

This obama spread the wealth tax plan scares me

I work for a car dealer and this tax plan is going to force them to get rid of as much of the support staff as possible, people such as hourly oil change techs and shop helpers, porters, shuttle drivers, service writers and office personal are on the chopping block..

They won't get rid of me or the other flat rate techs because we cost them nothing to keep since we only get paid a percentage of what we make for the company BUT my job will be a lot harder when I have to do a lot of stuff for free that support staff used to do for us.

We were supposed to get about 60k in new equipment for the shop and thats been canceled in prep for the tax increases.. Plus they are pretty much freezing the pay rate, raises are going to be hard to come by..

BTW right now with the current lower taxes we are making some profit, ford service and parts is making money.. I think chevy service and parts are making money but sales is way down but new car sales is very low profit anyways.. but when you don't sell cars you also can't sell the highly profitable add-on's such as warranties and financing and accessories.


This could be the final nail in the coffin for many car dealers struggling to hang on.. That might be a good thing for the industry in the long run but it will cause many people to go unemployed

I personally should be ok since ford dealers that do remain open will still need trained and certified techs like me to be able to get paid for warranty work..

the down side is as more dealers close due to the poor economy and tax increases my value drops since the amount of senior master techs available will exceed the amount needed to keep shop competency and many shops will still want to keep some of the cheaper non certified guys around to lower costs..

[Gearbanger 101]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Why are your apostrophes different?

He's typing one of them out in Microsoft Word or some other spell checking program before cutting and pasting it into here would be my guess?

[EMW150]

Originally Posted by GT40XStang9

Why are your apostrophes different?

Good eye. You should be a detective.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by jikelly

It's both.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

We as a country generate more than enough tax revenue to cover our needs and more, but most Govt. banked undertakings are grossly wasteful and inefficient.

[Therian]

Originally Posted by dew22

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

We as a country generate more than enough tax revenue to cover our needs and more, but most Govt. banked undertakings are grossly wasteful and inefficient.

If by inefficient you mean uncompetitive, it's because they necessarily have to be in order to not conflict with the private market. See: 1930s

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by dew22

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

We as a country generate more than enough tax revenue to cover our needs and more, but most Govt. banked undertakings are grossly wasteful and inefficient.

Disagree with what?

You think there should be continued corporate bailouts? Or are you saying you would oppose any measure to provide assistance/relief to individuals?

Where is this 300 billion they are talking about for a second bailout going to come from?

[dew22]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Disagree with what?

With your assertion that there's not enough tax revenue being generated.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by dew22

With your assertion that there's not enough tax revenue being generated.

Oh, I missed the obvious.

What do you propose we cut out of our budget?

[GT40XStang9]

hatchet

[guitargod331]

Originally Posted by Gearbanger 101

If someone’s only pulling down 30K in profit, with the rest being overhead and what not, then it's not going to matter much anyway because he'll most likely be out of business the following year.

I know this is going back kind of far, but I just saw this thread today, and I can't believe no one has said anything about this comment. Gearbanger, do you know any REAL business owners?
Both my family and my wife's family come from a background of small business. And I am a couple of months away from starting up a small business (insurance agency) so I'm pissed as hell about Obama's "plan"
My grandparents own a water softener business in Ohio, tell me, between paying for their buildings, utilities, trucks, inventory, payroll, and other business expenses, that it doesn't take 250K for them to make about 30K in profit?
How about my wife's dad? He owns a used car dealership. I'm not going to give out his exact numbers, but the gross numbers his business takes in is ONE HUNDRED TIMES larger than his actual profit. Tell me how raising his taxes won't screw him over. Neither of my families were handed these business, they took risks, they lived under the poverty level for years getting their businesses started before they started making any real money.

Now I am by no means against assisting people who TRULY need it. Problem is, I've seen social programs taken advantage of WAY too much. I spent several years working for a law firm that handles personal injury and SSI/SSD. Taking advantage of the system is not a rarity, it's more common than you'd ever imagine. I am all for helping people who really need the help, but government is doing a piss poor job of it. Doesn't everyone know about the 80/20 rule when you're giving to charity? That not more than 20% of the charity's funds should go to administration? Government runs on the 80/20 rule, only it's flipped. They're spending the vast majority of that money on administration (salaries, etc.) They're inefficient as hell, and they need to get out of the business of social programs. I honestly believe that if we were to cut out all spending on social security and the like, and get rid of all the government's tax income that is supposed to fund social programs, and made it easy for people to make donations to GOOD charities, we as a nation could spend about 1/3 what we currently do on social programs, and do more good with it.
Because I don't want to work 100 hours a week and take risks with my family's future just for some idiot like Obama to tell me it's my patriotic duty to give that money to someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by guitargod331

I know this is going back kind of far, but I just saw this thread today, and I can't believe no one has said anything about this comment. Gearbanger, do you know any REAL business owners?
Both my family and my wife's family come from a background of small business. And I am a couple of months away from starting up a small business (insurance agency) so I'm pissed as hell about Obama's "plan"
My grandparents own a water softener business in Ohio, tell me, between paying for their buildings, utilities, trucks, inventory, payroll, and other business expenses, that it doesn't take 250K for them to make about 30K in profit?
How about my wife's dad? He owns a used car dealership. I'm not going to give out his exact numbers, but the gross numbers his business takes in is ONE HUNDRED TIMES larger than his actual profit. Tell me how raising his taxes won't screw him over. Neither of my families were handed these business, they took risks, they lived under the poverty level for years getting their businesses started before they started making any real money.

Now I am by no means against assisting people who TRULY need it. Problem is, I've seen social programs taken advantage of WAY too much. I spent several years working for a law firm that handles personal injury and SSI/SSD. Taking advantage of the system is not a rarity, it's more common than you'd ever imagine. I am all for helping people who really need the help, but government is doing a piss poor job of it. Doesn't everyone know about the 80/20 rule when you're giving to charity? That not more than 20% of the charity's funds should go to administration? Government runs on the 80/20 rule, only it's flipped. They're spending the vast majority of that money on administration (salaries, etc.) They're inefficient as hell, and they need to get out of the business of social programs. I honestly believe that if we were to cut out all spending on social security and the like, and get rid of all the government's tax income that is supposed to fund social programs, and made it easy for people to make donations to GOOD charities, we as a nation could spend about 1/3 what we currently do on social programs, and do more good with it.
Because I don't want to work 100 hours a week and take risks with my family's future just for some idiot like Obama to tell me it's my patriotic duty to give that money to someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it.

I'm curious, does a business get taxed on what you profit, or do they tax you on what it grosses in before expenses? I don't know much about the way a business gets taxed, so I hope you can answer It just seems wrong to tax the crap out of people trying to make a go of it for themselves, the big oil and corporations can afford to having their tax status reverted back to the way the Clintons administration might have had it, but someone like you should not be in the same boat as them, if that's the way it is.

[EMW150]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

the big oil and corporations can afford to having their tax status reverted back to the way the Clintons administration might have had it,

It's always big oil isn't it? Do you realize that if you raise their taxes, you're going to pay the difference at the pump???? Yes YOU! All that does is give more money for the feds to blow on entitlement programs and YOU foot the bill. I can't believe people don't have this figured out yet.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by EMW150

It's always big oil isn't it? Do you realize that if you raise their taxes, you're going to pay the difference at the pump???? Yes YOU! All that does is give more money for the feds to blow on entitlement programs and YOU foot the bill. I can't believe people don't have this figured out yet.

you're right I wasn't thinking, that is what eventually always happens, however I was wondering if businesses in general are taxed the same as the oil companies? According to profits?
There's no doubt that they could absorb a higher tax payment then the little guys, and still make huge profits but no company would sit still and lose profits. So taxes are out of the question, then we cut spending for useless wars, handouts to foreign countries, and end the Fed for starters.

[Bluffing024]

I believe business tax is on "Gross Profit" which is...

Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold

Gross profit should not be confused with net income:

Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses

[EMW150]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

you're right I wasn't thinking, that is what eventually always happens, however I was wondering if businesses in general are taxed the same as the oil companies? According to profits?
There's no doubt that they could absorb a higher tax payment then the little guys, and still make huge profits but no company would sit still and lose profits. So taxes are out of the question, then we cut spending for useless wars, handouts to foreign countries, and end the Fed for starters.

I agree. Spending needs cut badly.

[guitargod331]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

I'm curious, does a business get taxed on what you profit, or do they tax you on what it grosses in before expenses? I don't know much about the way a business gets taxed, so I hope you can answer It just seems wrong to tax the crap out of people trying to make a go of it for themselves, the big oil and corporations can afford to having their tax status reverted back to the way the Clintons administration might have had it, but someone like you should not be in the same boat as them, if that's the way it is.

The actual amount we're taxed on is still net profit, not gross intake, but it would still be completely wrong to raise taxes based on gross intake. The percent of profit to gross income is a very low number. A lot of restaurants only profit 5 to 10 percent. For me, it will also be a low percentage because some (maybe all, I haven't looked into all the companies) insurance companies will allow the policyholders' payments go into my account, then they make regular withdrawals from my bank account to collect the premiums.

And I also agree that hiking taxes on big corporations will only raise the consumer's cost. Since there's no legal monopoly the gov't can't (and shouldn't) do jack about what the oil companies charge.

On a third note, not competing with the private market is not a good reason for government to be ineffective with the money we give them. If the free market is offering us services, the government should stay out of it. In my opinion that would include charity, health insurance, and education. I realize there are some families without any tax liability, and would have to be paying more out-of-pocket to purchase a private education. I'd have no problem with government-funded "scholarships" to private schools, the same as what they already do with college scholarships. However, with the tax savings we'd all realize, community leaders ought to be able to fund those scholarships w/out any problem, and by giving much less money than what we give gov't for education.

[COramprat]

So what is the actual dollar amount attached to those over $250,000 a year? I don't see it as 50%. Most people are getting worked up over nothing.

Originally Posted by Obama website

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:

* Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.

* Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.

* Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

* Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

Under the Obama Plan:

* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

* Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

* Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

By cutting capital gains on small business it looks like the benefit outweighs the tax increace...however minute it is.

I also don't see where giving back tax cuts Bush allowed for the wealthy as being a sign of a socialist agenda.

[svttech76]

If obama does cut taxes and cut spending I will praise him, but I doubt it.. there is no way he can cut much of anything, his fellow dems will block it. So he won't be able to go ahead with his tax plan..


What I think we will see, is the very lowest brackets get more of a earned income credit and the upper classes pay taxes higher than the clinton years to fund social programs and unlike the clinton years this is not a bubble economy we are in a recession

What politicians say and what they do is two very different things. That goes for both parties.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by COramprat

So what is the actual dollar amount attached to those over $250,000 a year? I don't see it as 50%. Most people are getting worked up over nothing.



By cutting capital gains on small business it looks like the benefit outweighs the tax increace...however minute it is.

I also don't see where giving back tax cuts Bush allowed for the wealthy as being a sign of a socialist agenda.

raising taxes isnt socicalism, BUT what obamas plan does is this;

lets say that you made a small enough wage that you dont have any tax liability at the end of the year. now lets say that you had $1000 in fica taxes taken out of your paycheck during the year. when you do your tax return you would be getting that money back from the government since your tax liability was zero. now lets say obama puts his tax plan in place, remember that some of his tax credits are refundable which means that if you are eligible for say a $500 tax credit, your tax refund at the endof the year would go from the $1000 you would normally get to $1500, and that redistribution is the socialist part of the plan, because that money came from say caballo who made $250k that year, and obama raised his taxes back to pre-bish levels, which means he would pay an additional $7500 in taxes.

on the business end, if obamas plan goes into effect, then the businesses netting $250k would see their tax rate going from 35% to 45% which means that business would pay an additional $25k in taxes at the end of the year. now lets say that business created a full time job, so they would qualify for the $3000 "job creations tax credit". that means that when they did their tax return, they would lower their tax liability about $100 or so. hmmmm, spend $50k or more for the new full time job to get a $100 tasx reduction, yeah thats going to happen.

if on the other hand the rate businesses are taxed on their net income goes from 35% to 25%, that means the business gets to keep an extra $25k of their net income, and they would likely hav eincreased production because they could lower their prices, and that means that they would have to add another full time position.