BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GetBMWParts
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-26-2009, 11:33 PM   #1
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Only 23% of small business actually employe people...

the rest...77% don't. Why?

Because a majority of these "small business" are solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes...

Quote:
The U.S. has roughly 6 million businesses that employ people, and 20 million businesses without employees.

The latter group includes solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes but earn little if any income from the enterprise.

Small businesses are defined as having fewer than 500 workers each.

Sizable companies within that group wouldn't be snagged by Obama's personal tax rates simply because they are too large to report income on the individual return of the owner.

Many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit.

Last year the Tax Policy Center run jointly by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution examined the likely effects of Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000.

The analysis estimated that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income or losses fall in the two tax brackets whose rates would go up under Obama. Many are small businesses on paper, without workers.
So please republicans...stop the B.S. We know you know you'll get little mileage from defending the rich, but critizing Obama's tax plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth is for the birds

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/...t_check_budget
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2009, 02:19 AM   #2
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

right, so the business owners are not people????? doh!
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-28-2009, 03:20 AM   #3
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Yeah, I guess that my wife, who has her own CPA practice but no additional employees, isn't really working. Most every small business has at least one employee, even if it is the "sole proprietor."

I'm just getting tired of the vilification of CEO's and the wealthy, making them the scapegoats for the economy and why things aren't better. Nothing like class warfare to garner support to Obama's socialist dreams.

But hey, I converted in another thread due to the eloquence of a poster. I welcome my new Socialist Overlords with open arms. As a matter of fact, I've decided to start skipping my mortgage payments next month so I can get my own little piece of the stimulus pie.
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      02-28-2009, 11:09 AM   #4
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins View Post
I'm just getting tired of the vilification of CEO's and the wealthy, making them the scapegoats for the economy and why things aren't better. Nothing like class warfare to garner support to Obama's socialist dreams.
Well get used to more of it because it's exactly what is coming. I nearly rolled over in my future grave when I read yet another moment of brilliance from Robert Reich:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Reich
It's about time a presidential budget unequivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saezhave shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.

Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole. This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans, when fully employed, can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things as middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.
The rest of the article is here if you care to read: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/t...ressive_budget
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-28-2009, 11:36 AM   #5
scollins
Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin'
 
scollins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Renton, WA

Posts: 2,345
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saezhave shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.

The rest of the article is here if you care to read: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/t...ressive_budget

So, did the AMOUNT of taxes paid by the top 1% actually go up or down, because this joker's sentence clearly implies that the rich are paying far less in taxes now in 3 decades ago. That is clearly not the truth. Yes, the percentage tax rate is lower, but the actual dollars collected is much higher.

I wonder which is a larger number: 37% tax rate on 7% of total income or 31% tax rate on 22% of total income? Seems to me that 31% tax rate on 22% of the income is a much larger amount of money for the government than 37% on 7%.
__________________
Scott
2010 E70 X5 35d
Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim
ZAP | ZCW | ZPP | ZPS | ZRC | ZTP | 322 | 328 | 330 | 386 | 4AZ | 4UB | 655 | 6FL | 6NF
2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....
scollins is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      03-03-2009, 02:09 PM   #6
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Im confused as to how the rich are paying less taxes than the middle class. You do know we already have progressive tax rates in this country, right?
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 09:01 AM   #7
JB135i
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SW burbs

Posts: 478
iTrader: (0)

Yeh and these business never expand either to include what you would call true employees? Why do you always want to drag others down rather improving everyones situation up?

Another point- When have any of you new-socialists ever gotten a job from a poor guy? Seriously, when?

If a rich guy needs something, service or material, it creates a job, does it not?

When a rich guy buys a Lambo for example, the dealership makes money, the salesguy makes money, the mechs make money, the cleanup crew makes money, the secretaries make money, the accountants make money, the banks make loans, the parking lot people make money, the snow plow guys make money, the restaurants near the dealership make money, a so on and on and on. Then all those people are better off, see how that works?!?!?!

When the rich win EVERYONE wins, why is that so hard to understand?

Why do you socialists want everyone to be in Dodge Nitro's? Do those cars spark the same cascade of income? NO they don't, it's not possible, plus they just are sucky cars LOL.

Enjoy your Kool-Aid Obama people...
JB135i is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 11:19 AM   #8
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by damadama View Post
Its all about capital gains and such. Most of the top 2%'s income is from investments and moving money around. Income is income in my book though, I think everyone should be flat taxxed like 20%
So the rich are the only ones that buy and sell houses or have investment accounts?

As JB135i just said in very nice post, why is it that the Democrats are so keen to knock the people off from the top instead of elevating those from the bottom? Instead of encouraging small businesses and corporations to continue creating jobs in this country, it seems like Democrats want us all waiting outside the unemployment office.
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 03:55 PM   #9
Couch
Colonel
 
Couch's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Houston

Posts: 2,903
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to Couch
You are aware that small business owners with no employees (such as my dad) are not bringing home millions each year right?
Couch is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 03:57 PM   #10
Couch
Colonel
 
Couch's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Houston

Posts: 2,903
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to Couch
Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
So the rich are the only ones that buy and sell houses or have investment accounts?

As JB135i just said in very nice post, why is it that the Democrats are so keen to knock the people off from the top instead of elevating those from the bottom? Instead of encouraging small businesses and corporations to continue creating jobs in this country, it seems like Democrats want us all waiting outside the unemployment office.
Exactly.

Profit is an evil word to the left, and welfare is considered a positive thing.
Couch is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 04:23 PM   #11
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Couch View Post
Exactly.

Profit is an evil word to the left, and welfare is considered a positive thing.
Where's the controversy in that statement?

You have prominent members of the Democrat party proclaiming the latest actions by Obama since they openly redistribute the income of the wealthy. It's also why you saw Obama attack corporate CEOs in the State of the Union and continue to hear about government controls on CEO/executive salaries and bonuses.

If that's not demonizing profit and proclaiming welfare, I don't what is.
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 05:01 PM   #12
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB135i View Post
When the rich win EVERYONE wins, why is that so hard to understand?
Actually the rich win when everyone else wins.

When everyday middle and lower class people buy, they buy from the rich making the rich, rich. The rich thus employ middle and lower class people to keep up with the demand from the middle and lower class people who buy stuff from the rich.

When the middle and lower class people don't buy, the rich eventually become less rich. If the rich want to become richer again, they have to give a little to boost those that buy from them.

We all need each other.

Remember you just don't become rich out of no where...that money has to come from somewhere...and 90% of it comes from everyday joes like you and me. There would be no rich if it weren't for everyone else...while everyone else is still "everyone else" regardless of whether the rich exist or not...because at that point "everyone else" become self sufficent and barter equally for goods.

TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 05:20 PM   #13
JB135i
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SW burbs

Posts: 478
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
Actually the rich win when everyone else wins.

When everyday middle and lower class people buy, they buy from the rich making the rich, rich. The rich thus employ middle and lower class people to keep up with the demand from the middle and lower class people who buy stuff from the rich.

When the middle and lower class people don't buy, the rich eventually become less rich. If the rich want to become richer again, they have to give a little to boost those that buy from them.

We all need each other.

Remember you just don't become rich out of no where...that money has to come from somewhere...and 90% of it comes from everyday joes like you and me. There would be no rich if it weren't for everyone else...while everyone else is still "everyone else" regardless of whether the rich exist or not...because at that point "everyone else" become self sufficent and barter equally for goods.

Another great way to illustrate the point, well put!

And the rich(er) can get/give that boost when they are paying a lower tax rate, whether it's a lower income tax rate or capital gains. If people can put more money into the "system" everyone wins.

Take it to the extreme for conversational purposes, say the government "lets us keep" only 10% of our money....

How can we buy groceries, fishing gear, cars, or anything. Think of this, without disposable income, we cannot even afford to pay STATE and local taxes and fees, high taxes actually stifle other government income!

If money is in the system we all win, even the government!

Now don't get me wrong, we do NEED some taxes for legit purposes, like roads, the military (yes we need one!), and those types of things that only a good and efficient government can create. But over taxation (eating the rich) kills off the ability to do those things.

I don't even object to welfare if it's implemented as a true and temporary safety net, because crappy things happen to good and honest people sometimes.

PLEASE PEOPLE, DON'T EAT THE RICH! It just doesn't work!

Thank you for letting me vent...
JB135i is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 05:36 PM   #14
JOSG328I
First Lieutenant
 
JOSG328I's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 328I Sedan
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Huntington Beach

Posts: 377
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 328I  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
Where's the controversy in that statement?

You have prominent members of the Democrat party proclaiming the latest actions by Obama since they openly redistribute the income of the wealthy. It's also why you saw Obama attack corporate CEOs in the State of the Union and continue to hear about government controls on CEO/executive salaries and bonuses.
If that's not demonizing profit and proclaiming welfare, I don't what is.
I don't understand what the issue is with demonizing profiteering on failing companies. Give credit where credit is due? How would you handle a CEO that pratically bankrupts your company? By giving him/her a handsome severance?

Secondly if the government is going to bailout these sinking companies than I am all for the controls on their CEO salaries and bonuses. If I had my say I would let them fail, and not bail them out; but since we did, as a taxpayer any top level exec that is taking bailout money should not benefit through bonuses or a salary.

If you want to benefit as a CEO go start a private company that does not need any bailout monies, and is successful even in years of negative returns & down economies then justify your profit & bonuses as a CEO.
JOSG328I is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 06:08 PM   #15
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB135i View Post
But over taxation (eating the rich) kills off the ability to do those things.
But here is the problem:

When would government know it has reached the tipping point? Over taxation is an ambiguous and fluctuating number. You don't know when it's been reached until its too late.

I think the effects of taxation are very elastic. I do believe there is a tipping point, but determining that tipping point at any given time is like finding a needle and a hay stack that gets tossed around every 5 mintues.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-04-2009, 11:24 PM   #16
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOSG328I View Post
I don't understand what the issue is with demonizing profiteering on failing companies. Give credit where credit is due? How would you handle a CEO that pratically bankrupts your company? By giving him/her a handsome severance?

Secondly if the government is going to bailout these sinking companies than I am all for the controls on their CEO salaries and bonuses. If I had my say I would let them fail, and not bail them out; but since we did, as a taxpayer any top level exec that is taking bailout money should not benefit through bonuses or a salary.

If you want to benefit as a CEO go start a private company that does not need any bailout monies, and is successful even in years of negative returns & down economies then justify your profit & bonuses as a CEO.
I don't have any problem with arguing against corporate CEOs that pad their check books through failing times. That's bad business. But it is not the role of government to control who deserves their income and who doesn't. That's not free market capitalism. Let the shareholders decide whether such policies should succeed or not. If the CEO of a company I owned stock was spending millions on personal bonuses, you bet your bottom dollar I would not own stock in that company any more.
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 03:05 AM   #17
Negotiator
Lieutenant
 
Negotiator's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 GTI
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA

Posts: 539
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
I don't have any problem with arguing against corporate CEOs that pad their check books through failing times. That's bad business. But it is not the role of government to control who deserves their income and who doesn't. That's not free market capitalism. Let the shareholders decide whether such policies should succeed or not. If the CEO of a company I owned stock was spending millions on personal bonuses, you bet your bottom dollar I would not own stock in that company any more.
It's not like the government is force feeding these companies with bailout money.
Negotiator is offline   Ukraine
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 04:25 AM   #18
Heinzftw
Major
 
Heinzftw's Avatar
 
Drives: 2000 Civic+2008 Accord
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, Cali

Posts: 1,202
iTrader: (0)

If you are in that top 2% there are TONS of things that you can do to not pay as much taxes as you should.
401k
Retirement Fund
IRA
Stocks
Laundering
etc etc
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javi335 View Post
saw you comment and i'd lay on my bed and cry, then i put some Yulio Iglesias music, no more problem.


-█--------█-
Heinzftw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 11:02 AM   #19
JOSG328I
First Lieutenant
 
JOSG328I's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 328I Sedan
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Huntington Beach

Posts: 377
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 328I  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinzftw View Post
If you are in that top 2% there are TONS of things that you can do to not pay as much taxes as you should.
401k
Retirement Fund
IRA
Stocks
Laundering
etc etc
Swiss Bank Accounts FTW!!
JOSG328I is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 12:07 PM   #20
Nixon
Banned
 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

Posts: 1,396
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
I don't have any problem with arguing against corporate CEOs that pad their check books through failing times. That's bad business. But it is not the role of government to control who deserves their income and who doesn't. That's not free market capitalism. Let the shareholders decide whether such policies should succeed or not. If the CEO of a company I owned stock was spending millions on personal bonuses, you bet your bottom dollar I would not own stock in that company any more.
Shareholders decide.

Yes, that's right.

And now that we are the largest single shareholders in a number of these companies, we are deciding. It is exactly the same as if we were the the largest single institutional investor in a company.

Why do you have a problem with the shareholders having a say in executive compensation?
Nixon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 01:58 PM   #21
imported_MPower
Zoom Zoom
 
Drives: 2010 VW GTI
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona

Posts: 1,071
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
Shareholders decide.

Yes, that's right.

And now that we are the largest single shareholders in a number of these companies, we are deciding. It is exactly the same as if we were the the largest single institutional investor in a company.

Why do you have a problem with the shareholders having a say in executive compensation?
So you are saying that government holding shares in Citigroup is exactly the same as if I, individually bought shares in Citigroup? Because that is clearly not the case. I cant sell my Citigroup shares tomorrow if I decide. I have no control other than elect a new Congress/President.

What the Democrats seem to want to do is not have competitive markets with multiple buyers/sellers but have an anti-capitalist market where one large entity comprised of only a few controls the company. And, again, that's not capitalism. That's government control of business.
__________________

In the garage: 2007 MINI Cooper S

WARNING: What you have read is an opinion. Yours will differ.


imported_MPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2009, 03:13 PM   #22
Nixon
Banned
 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

Posts: 1,396
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by imported_MPower View Post
So you are saying that government holding shares in Citigroup is exactly the same as if I, individually bought shares in Citigroup? Because that is clearly not the case. I cant sell my Citigroup shares tomorrow if I decide. I have no control other than elect a new Congress/President.

What the Democrats seem to want to do is not have competitive markets with multiple buyers/sellers but have an anti-capitalist market where one large entity comprised of only a few controls the company. And, again, that's not capitalism. That's government control of business.

Go back and read my post. I compared it to INSTITUTIONAL investors owning large blocks, not you personally. Large institutional investors often use their size to demand changes without resorting to selling their holdings. Your chosen method of voicing your opinion by selling stocks is not the only method in the market for influencing Board decisions. Executive Compensation Boards are subject to this same pressure, including the threat of recalling individual Board members. No selling of stocks are required. I'm not comparing you to institutional investors, or to gov't ownership of a company's stocks.

And what the Democrats really want to do, and are currently doing, is to establish minority ownership just long enough to keep the economy from spiraling downward and crashing the entire economy. It's called a "soft landing". If a soft landing can be achieved, these companies will regain their private ownership. Stop trying to pretend there is some devious scheme.

But more to the point, again:

Why do you have a problem with the shareholders having a say in executive compensation?


I'm not going to play your game of throwing the spread at me so you can avoid direct questions. Either you can answer or not.
Nixon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST