From the BOSS

[Devaclis]

A letter from the Boss:

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.


However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY :

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, someday, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bailout all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I'll fire you and your coworkers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

Signed, THE BOSS

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

[LambeauXLIV]

^ +1

[Kanabiis]

I am that boss.....

And let me tell you, the truth is hidden in the letter.....

Small businesses are the heart of America, but our leaders don't feel that way. They give corporate kick backs to the largest, most profitable corporations in the US while taxing the ever living shit out of small bussiness.

Corporations that ship jobs overseas and across the borders have huge tax breaks, and worst, communities such as Colorado Springs and Denver offer huge financial incentives for these companies to set up shop in their cities. Yet these corporations pay little to no taxes for the land given to them by these cities, receive huge tax incentives, all for what? To ship jobs overseas and pay multi-million dollar bonuses to executives that are sucking the workforce dry.

My small business pays a larger percentage in taxes then Ford, GM, Pfizer, Kellogs, etc. etc. Sure, these corporations pay millions in corporate taxes and I only pay tens of thousands, but why should my tax burden be twice as much on a percentage basis just because I cannot afford to pay millions in lobbiest payola?

This is not a democrat vs. republican thing, this is a corporate America vs. American citizens thing. If you believe that Obama is the only one that shit on small businesses then you did not run a small business during the Bush administration or you were just blinded by partisanship.

Small businesses are being fucked by corporate America and the leaders of our nation.

Everytime I hear about 'stimulus' I just want to shoot someone....

The truth is, corporate America and your leaders are waging class warfare, they want you to believe that your enemy is that welfare mom with 4 kids.... an easy target, she doesnt have any lobbiests, or talking heads on Fox/CNN/MSNBC, you know who does? Thats right, corporations....

Welfare is such a small percentage of the national budget that it amazes me it is brought up so much, welfare in ALL forms, Social Security, housing, food stamps, disabled SSA etc. etc. accounts for only 6% of all federal spending. 6%, yet all these talking heads, and bullshit artists on the TV keep trying to spin it as if welfare is what is driving our country down the tubs. 6 fucking percent......

You want to know what welfare is really killing our federal budget, welfare that goes to countries such as Israel, which accounts for amost 11% of the federal annual budget. But do you hear anyone talking about that on the TV? Do you hear anyone pointing out that we give twice as much welfare to other nations, then we do our own people? Of course not, that lobby is much too powerful for us to be talking about that. So its easier to make some poor woman with 4 kids the boogy man.

Now, I am not advocating welfare, I believe it needs reform, but to claim that this is why employeers cannot hire more people is BULLSHIT..... and more of the same propaganda and class warfare to keep you hating the poor and worshiping the rich.

[Horsman]

End taxes, I can't buy a "Cheezeburger" without a $1.50 tax :(

[dchd1130]

Great post. I find myself in a similar situation. We are coming up on our busy season, so we will hold tight till fall. After that if things don't look better, we will simply shut the business down and auction off the assets. The 30 people we employ will be jobless, and $800,000 we pay in taxes will be gone. It is the last thing I want to do. I love this business, but at some point it just isn't worth it anymore.

[dirkterrell]

Welfare is such a small percentage of the national budget that it amazes me it is brought up so much, welfare in ALL forms, Social Security, housing, food stamps, disabled SSA etc. etc. accounts for only 6% of all federal spending. 6%, yet all these talking heads, and bullshit artists on the TV keep trying to spin it as if welfare is what is driving our country down the tubs. 6 fucking percent......


Ummm, where did you get that number? Social Security and Medicare/MedicAid account for almost half of the Federal budget. It might be 6% of GDP but that's an entirely different thing.

Dirk

[Shea]

Welfare is such a small percentage of the national budget that it amazes me it is brought up so much, welfare in ALL forms, Social Security, housing, food stamps, disabled SSA etc. etc. accounts for only 6% of all federal spending. 6%, yet all these talking heads, and bullshit artists on the TV keep trying to spin it as if welfare is what is driving our country down the tubs. 6 fucking percent......

Really? I don't know where you get your numbers but the reality of the situation is that Social Security ALONE accounts for 21%. Transfer payments/welfare/etc accounted for 55.1% of the budget (give or take).



You want to know what welfare is really killing our federal budget, welfare that goes to countries such as Israel, which accounts for amost 11% of the federal annual budget. But do you hear anyone talking about that on the TV? Do you hear anyone pointing out that we give twice as much welfare to other nations, then we do our own people? Of course not, that lobby is much too powerful for us to be talking about that. So its easier to make some poor woman with 4 kids the boogy man.

Foreign aid totals less then 1% of the budget. Where are you getting these numbers?



Now, I am not advocating welfare, I believe it needs reform, but to claim that this is why employeers cannot hire more people is BULLSHIT..... and more of the same propaganda and class warfare to keep you hating the poor and worshiping the rich.

Dude, seriously. If companies are allowed to keep more of the money they earn what do you think they will do with it? Your lack of understanding about simple economics is breathtaking.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

[Kanabiis]

Ummm, where did you get that number? Social Security and Medicare/MedicAid account for almost half of the Federal budget. It might be 6% of GDP but that's an entirely different thing.

Dirk

50%!!!! Last year federal spending on welfare was 415 billion dollars. The fedral budget last year was 4.6 trillion dollars. You do the math...

[Kanabiis]

"Dude, seriously. If companies are allowed to keep more of the money they earn what do you think they will do with it? Your lack of understanding about simple economics is breathtaking."

Yea, let me ask you, how much of that 90 billion dollars that AIG received from tax payers has created jobs?

How much of those tax breaks Ford, GM, Chrysler recieved for the past 50 years went to create jobs? Oh thats right, they sold plants in the US and used that money to build plants in Mexico...

How many jobs were created by Exxon when the received MASSIVE tax incentives and tax breaks for the past few decades... oh thats right, massive US layoffs and huge spending in the middle east.

But yes, lets continue to give massive tax breaks and incentives to the bussiness that ship jobs overseas while crushing the small bussinesses with the tax burden.

You are right, welfare is killing America, CORPORATE welfare....

Its not cool with you to spend 415 billion on welfare last year, but AIG received 90 Billion dollars of welfare and thats quite alright. Almost 25% of what the US government spent on every poor person in America.....

And people tell me I'm crazy....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

50%!!!! Last year federal spending on welfare was 415 billion dollars. The fedral budget last year was 4.6 trillion dollars. You do the math...
Sorry, I trust Dr. Dirks mathematical abilities.....:)

Maybe what we need isn't a "workforce reduction", but a welfare LIFEforce reduction"?

[YZFRydn]

Really? I don't know where you get your numbers but the reality of the situation is that Social Security ALONE accounts for 21%. Transfer payments/welfare/etc accounted for 55.1% of the budget (give or take).



Foreign aid totals less then 1% of the budget. Where are you getting these numbers?



Dude, seriously. If companies are allowed to keep more of the money they earn what do you think they will do with it? Your lack of understanding about simple economics is breathtaking.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png


:imwithstupid:

@ Not sure why you think Welfare is just some small thing. Not sure if you've ever dealt with a lot of people on welfare but the ones I have come across have 4+ kids, don't work, and live in subsidized housing. It would be real nice to sit on my ass all day and have all of your tax money pay for my bills.

Yes, AIG and other corporations got huge bailouts which imo a lot of them shouldn't have received. But don't point the finger and say, we did this so this other thing isn't important.

[Shea]

50%!!!! Last year federal spending on welfare was 415 billion dollars. The fedral budget last year was 4.6 trillion dollars. You do the math...

Can't do math with numbers pulled from thin air.

Federal spending FY 2008: 2.902 Trillon (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html)

Mandatory Spending FY 2008: 1.412 Trillon

Social Security - $544 billion
Medicare - $325 billion
Medicaid - $186 billion
All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. (Food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc)

=48.65% - ish.

Once again, where are you getting your numbers?

[Kanabiis]

Sorry, I trust Dr. Dirks mathematical abilities.....:)

Maybe what we need isn't a "workforce reduction", but a welfare LIFEforce reduction"?

We need reform in the worst way...... period....

But just like every discussion about Government spending, it turns into a war over 'poor people' which distracts us from the real issues.

Social Security spending will be over 550 billion this year. Every year the workforce grows smaller while the recipients of Social Security get bigger.

Retirement age is 55, yet many people live to be 80-90+ years old. This means that if you retire at 55, and live to be 95 you actually are living on Social Security longer then you put money in. To top it all off, the federal government somehow looks at Social Security pool of money as some kind of 'reserve' bank. They use that money to fund just about anything that isnt in the 'budget'.

Worse, you have federal spending trillions of dollars that is 'not on the books' so you get pie graphs like the one Gixxer posted that are remarkably inaccurate to the real spending. That graph accounts for a budget of 2.2 trillion, yet the federal spending last year was almost 6 trillion. Which is why our National debt is hundreds of trillions of dollars.

[636chick]

All I have to say is :shocked:

2 things come to mind on this well actually 3
one he is right by some accounts

two - uhmmm as the payroll manager for an annual payroll on the upper side of 1 million, I have never had to pay quarterly taxes in that ball park for payroll taxes. I do pay every week to the tune of 8 grand, along with 4 different state taxes SUTA and withholding. I say he needs a new accountant!!!!!! Sounds like someone missed payment's or didn't sign up for the IRS new EFT Program. Sounds like alot of Penalties and interest to me. Maybe it could be Payroll and Income together, but still just WOW. Also sounds like that man needs some major write offs. We will see in the next years round of taxes how bad it will get.

Third as an 8@ government general contract we too have been hit hard by the stimulus plan. We no longer are entitled to set aside contracts and everything has gone to competitive bid. So now we are out there having to bid virus being given the work based on our past performance. We are up against the BIG boy's now. You see they can steamroll through and leave destruction in their path's. They can underbid us every time with their bankroll behind them. All they are doing is underbidding everyone just for cash flow, they can afford to make the money to cover their payroll and not have to layoff employees'. We however cannot afford that. We are downsizing and rethinking instead of going for 1 million $ jobs we are now bidding 50,000 jobs just to hide from the large companies cause that is child play to them not worth their time. I see the Stimulus package as always helping big brother while whipping out the little guy.

[Kanabiis]

Gixxer... my numbers come from ACTUAL spending, not projected spending. Again, your graph only indicates the 'on paper' spending of the federal government.

Actual federal spending is almost 3 times what the bugdet was.... maybe even 4 if you listen to people like Ron Paul who has been trying to shine the light on the bullshit out of the federal govenement for years.

[YZFRydn]

We need reform in the worst way...... period....

But just like every discussion about Government spending, it turns into a war over 'poor people' which distracts us from the real issues.

Social Security spending will be over 550 billion this year. Every year the workforce grows smaller while the recipients of Social Security get bigger.

Retirement age is 55, yet many people live to be 80-90+ years old. This means that if you retire at 55, and live to be 95 you actually are living on Social Security longer then you put money in. To top it all off, the federal government somehow looks at Social Security pool of money as some kind of 'reserve' bank. They use that money to fund just about anything that isnt in the 'budget'.

Worse, you have federal spending trillions of dollars that is 'not on the books' so you get pie graphs like the one Gixxer posted that are remarkably inaccurate to the real spending. That graph accounts for a budget of 2.2 trillion, yet the federal spending last year was almost 6 trillion. Which is why our National debt is hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Lol where did you get the # from?

[dirkterrell]

50%!!!! Last year federal spending on welfare was 415 billion dollars. The fedral budget last year was 4.6 trillion dollars. You do the math...

Oh, I can do the math but you have to start with the right numbers. :)

Federal 2008 budget as proposed was 2.9 trillion. Social security was 608 billion, so that's 0.608/2.9*100 = 21%. Medicare/Medicaid/etc were 595 billion, so 0.595/2.9*100 = 20%. Unemployment/welfare/etc was 324 billion, so 0.324/2.9*100 = 11%. Those sum to 52%, thus "about half." QED

Dirk

[Shea]

Yea, let me ask you, how much of that 90 billion dollars that AIG received from tax payers has created jobs?

Uh, did they earn that money? Answer no, so why are you using this to refute my argument? Weak.



How much of those tax breaks Ford, GM, Chrysler recieved for the past 50 years went to create jobs? Oh thats right, they sold plants in the US and used that money to build plants in Mexico...

And why did they do that? Cost of labor too high here? Think so. I like how you are now trying to equate tax breaks with moving jobs overseas. Won't work for me, but I'm sure somebody will buy it.



How many jobs were created by Exxon when the received MASSIVE tax incentives and tax breaks for the past few decades... oh thats right, massive US layoffs and huge spending in the middle east.

Since they are practically forbidden from drilling for domestic resources they have to go to where the oil is. Once again how does "massive" tax breaks equal "massive" layoffs?



But yes, lets continue to give massive tax breaks and incentives to the bussiness that ship jobs overseas while crushing the small bussinesses with the tax burden.

You are right, welfare is killing America, CORPORATE welfare....

Its not cool with you to spend 415 billion on welfare last year, but AIG received 90 Billion dollars of welfare and thats quite alright. Almost 25% of what the US government spent on every poor person in America.....

And people tell me I'm crazy....

Dude, I don't know what posts your reading but apparently they aren't mine. Where did I say that? When did I say that? Quite being a fucking whiner and stop putting words in my mouth. You're the one coming on here complaining and throwing bullshit numbers around trying to prove some anti-corporate point.

I don't support any of these BS bailouts. Yet you want to paint it so that I do. Where the fuck do you get off? When have I EVER come out in favor of them????? Tell me, point to the thread.

[dirkterrell]

Worse, you have federal spending trillions of dollars that is 'not on the books' so you get pie graphs like the one Gixxer posted that are remarkably inaccurate to the real spending. That graph accounts for a budget of 2.2 trillion, yet the federal spending last year was almost 6 trillion. Which is why our National debt is hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Where are you pulling these numbers from?

Dirk

[Shea]

Gixxer... my numbers come from ACTUAL spending, not projected spending. Again, your graph only indicates the 'on paper' spending of the federal government.

Actual federal spending is almost 3 times what the bugdet was.... maybe even 4 if you listen to people like Ron Paul who has been trying to shine the light on the bullshit out of the federal govenement for years.

Fine, show me the website where these numbers reside.

[Shea]

Which is why our National debt is hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Even with unfunded liabilities, which I can only assume is what you are alluding to, our national debt is in the 65-75 trillion dollar range. Not the "hundreds" of trillions of dollars.

[Kanabiis]

Oh, I can do the math but you have to start with the right numbers. :)

Federal 2008 budget as proposed was 2.9 trillion. Social security was 608 billion, so that's 0.608/2.9*100 = 21%. Medicare/Medicaid/etc were 595 billion, so 0.595/2.9*100 = 20%. Unemployment/welfare/etc was 324 billion, so 0.324/2.9*100 = 11%. Those sum to 52%, thus "about half." QED

Dirk

That would work well if the US government only spent 2.9 trillion last year....but they didn't they spent quite a bit more...

Just because the paper budget has a number doesnt mean that number was spent. If you budget 10 dollars for gas, and spend 15, you cant go to your wife and say, well i spent 10 bucks see look at the budget. You spent 15, period.

And I will take back the hundreds of trillions on the deficit, I was a bit hyperbolic... 10 trillion....

Its hard to think straight when you are talking about amounts of money so huge its almost impossible to comprehend.

[Shea]

That would work well if the US government only spent 2.9 trillion last year....but they didn't they spent quite a bit more...

Just because the paper budget has a number doesnt mean that number was spent. If you budget 10 dollars for gas, and spend 15, you cant go to your wife and say, well i spent 10 bucks see look at the budget. You spent 15, period.

Fine, show me the data so we can all be on the same page as you. Our data comes from gov'ment data. Where does yours come from?



And I will take back the hundreds of trillions on the deficit, I was a bit hyperbolic... 10 trillion....

uhhh yeah... just a slight exaggeration. Nice try.

[Kanabiis]

Fine, show me the website where these numbers reside.

I have been trying to find a single 'souce'.... its hard to do, since actual federal spending is pretty hard to track when the checks are hidden everywhere.

I do know that Ron Paul was on the Bill Maher show a few weeks ago talking about spending, and he said the bank bailouts alone should come close to 2 trillion when its all said and done. Thats just the bank bail outs....

Where do you think that money comes from?? Its not in the budget...... its just money pulled from thin air

[dirkterrell]

That would work well if the US government only spent 2.9 trillion last year....but they didn't they spent quite a bit more...


Again, source? Hell I can pull numbers out of the air too.



Its hard to think straight when you are talking about amounts of money so huge its almost impossible to comprehend.

So it seems.

Dirk

[Kanabiis]

"Fine, show me the data so we can all be on the same page as you. Our data comes from gov'ment data. Where does yours come from?"

How the hell do you think we got a deficit in the first place?? Federal spending above and beyond the budget, so they had to borrow that money.

While I dont have 'exact' figures yet.... You know god damn well that the government spends quite a bit more then whats in the budget, everyone knows that.....

[Shea]

I have been trying to find a single 'souce'.... its hard to do, since actual federal spending is pretty hard to track when the checks are hidden everywhere.

I do know that Ron Paul was on the Bill Maher show a few weeks ago talking about spending, and he said the bank bailouts alone should come close to 2 trillion when its all said and done. Thats just the bank bail outs....

Where do you think that money comes from?? Its not in the budget...... its just money pulled from thin air

Let's stay on target shall we?
We're not talking about now are we? We're talking about FY 2008 and the percentage of welfare/transfer payments. This your argument, that government spending for these programs is such an insignificant amount (related to overall spending) that we should really focus our attention elsewhere.

Our counter argument (and documented) is that welfare/transfer payments are in fact (and documented) make up the majority of the federal government's spending.

So the onus is on you to provide numbers proving your point. We have done it on our end. Time to step up to the plate.

If you want to talk about the FY 2009 budget and the incredibly irrational spending of money we don't have, will have to print, borrow, steal. That is a different topic.

[dirkterrell]

How the hell do you think we got a deficit in the first place?? Federal spending above and beyond the budget, so they had to borrow that money.


No, the correct description is spending above and beyond total receipts, which for 2008 were $2.66 trillion, thus the deficit.

Dirk

[Shea]

How the hell do you think we got a deficit in the first place?? Federal spending above and beyond the budget, so they had to borrow that money.

While I dont have 'exact' figures yet.... You know god damn well that the government spends quite a bit more then whats in the budget, everyone knows that.....

Yes, I'm well aware of how and why we have gotten to our current debt laden existence.

Posted budgets take into account money taken in and money paid out. The difference being the deficit (which is borrowed). This is documented as well in government data. What I am waiting for is for you to provide numbers that back up your position.

[Jason ON]

I love how people hate taxes: we shouldn't have any taxes, lower taxes, blah blah blah. No one likes having their money taken away for something else but no one seems to think about what they would lose if taxes suddenly went bye-bye.

Do you like police? Do you like the fire department? Maybe you like clean drinking water? What about parks? Do you like parks? Roads? Anyone here like roads? Bridges? Anyone here like bridges?

I guess if we suspended or threw away the Constitution (much as Cheney wanted to do) we wouldn't need courts, therefore we could reduce taxes, but what would happen if you had to sue your employer, or someone who ran over your child?

I guess, without taxes we wouldn't be able to start wars (which cost money) and hire contractors (which cost money), and use hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment to fight our enemies (paid for by taxes) because we wouldn't have any military (paid for by taxes).

Maybe, if we didn't have to pay taxes, we wouldn't have to hire ambassadors and a State Department to work with foreign nations to resolve diplomatic problems, thus thwarting most chances for war, and encourage economic development between nations.

Maybe without taxes you'd like to host criminals in your home, because there would be no prisons; there would be no Amber alerts, or sex predator websites.

Maybe without taxes there would be no Rocky Mountain National Park, or any national parks for our enjoyment.

Perhaps, without taxes, there would be no Social Security, as the chart above explains, is one o the largest spending accounts for the federal government. Then we wouldn't have to pay SS and payroll taxes but we'd have tens of thousands of elderly and homeless people dying on the streets every year in this country.

Maybe without taxes, this country couldn't have found justice for investors in the Madoff case. Eighty-five billion dollars stolen from people, but without taxes, without prosecutors, without judges and without the court itself, that never would have seen the light of day.

Accept it, taxes are vital to every government and the quality of life for the average citizen can be directly related to the amount of taxes raised by a nation. Look at the Scandinavian nations, they have some of the highest life expectancy rates, least pollution, lowest crime rates and most educated, and well paid people per capita than most other countries and, yes, they pay some high taxes.

Am I advocating tax and spend? Not at all. I think taxes are necessary and yet I think they could be accrued smarter than we've been doing it. But however much we "voted for change," this country is terribly conservative (in the basic definition of the word, not the political) and we resist any change. Would you rather pay a flat tax? Let's say everyone pays a flat tax of $1500 a year to the government. Sure, it's not much if you're making $50,000 a year, and less if you're making $500,000, but it's a lot if you're only making $18,000 a year. And what happens in the future when the government decides to raise that number? Would you still be okay with it? What about a tiered system with people making more paying more? The 1% won't like that, even though it's significantly less percentage wise than they'd pay under payroll taxes.

What about getting rid of the payroll tax and going straight to a sales tax? Would you be comfortable paying 3% on every purchase? Food? Movies? Cars? Houses? You are? How about 3% for the feds, 5% for the state and 2% for the city, and let's say 1% for regional things (like RTD, for example) So, now every time you spend something you're paying 11 percent. A $40,000 car is now $4400 more expensive. And then groceries, let's say $250 a month, $330 a year in taxes, and let's say you have a family phone bill of $150 a month: $198 in taxes for a year of service. That's nearly $5,000 in taxes for the year. Now what happens if you buys a boat, a car, a trailer, clothes, electricity, a second car, a motorcycle, etc. But you say you're already paying taxes on everything, right? But there's no income tax and therefore no tax returns. You pay as you go. You didn't overpay, you just paid.

I'd love to type some more but I have a meeting at noon I have to get to.

[Kanabiis]

Well considering the fact that there are entire organizations with hundreds of staff members trying to get a grasp on what the US government actually spends vs. budget I think it is safe to say that this info is much harder to find out then a quick google search.

here is a nice resource to get started though: http://www.federalbudget.com/

But I will point out something, regarding social security: (from the site)

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left over is routinely being "borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs). All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed. Another Ponzi link.

Social Security will need to be fixed. Here is a debate page. And here is more information on the Root Problem with Social Security.
__________________________________________________ ___

There are dozens of links to actual facts and figures on this site..... have at them...

[Sortarican]

I blame white people.

[Kanabiis]

But as always we have strayed off topic.....

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much the government spends, the problem is Jobs.... people dont have them.... and the companies most likely to hire new people cant because they dont have any money, because people dont have jobs, so they dont have any money to spend to stimulate the economy to create jobs.

No amount of federal reduction in spending will fix that.... PERIOD

Taxes will not fix this either.

Over the past 3 decades we have moved from a production based economy to a service based economy. Just look at employment trends over the past 3 decades... manufacturing and productions jobs down, service related jobs up. But a service based economy will not grow....

[dirkterrell]

here is a nice resource to get started though: http://www.federalbudget.com/


And that very page refutes your claim that welfare spending is insignificant:


(You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

Dirk

[DFab]

I don't believe the costs of the wars are included in the 2008 budget numbers. The Bush administration always used "emergency" spending requests.

The U.S. tax code is fucked. I think we all can agree with that.

Personally I don't like the blame the poor attitude. The welfare queen mentioned in the op is for the most part, a conservative bogeyman. Sure they do exist, but there's not very many of them.

[dirkterrell]

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much the government spends, the problem is Jobs.... people dont have them.... and the companies most likely to hire new people cant because they dont have any money, because people dont have jobs, so they dont have any money to spend to stimulate the economy to create jobs.

No amount of federal reduction in spending will fix that.... PERIOD


You mean if you paid less in taxes, you wouldn't have more money to spend hiring employees and growing your business?

Dirk

[Shea]

Well considering the fact that there are entire organizations with hundreds of staff members trying to get a grasp on what the US government actually spends vs. budget I think it is safe to say that this info is much harder to find out then a quick google search.

here is a nice resource to get started though: http://www.federalbudget.com/

But I will point out something, regarding social security:



So let me get this straight. You jump on here telling us that we are all wet because our data shows that government transfer payments account for the majority of spending. That really (according to you) it's all just 6% of a budget that is unreported. You throw out a bunch of numbers with no backing then say that there are "entire organizations" that can't come up with the real numbers. THEN you post a link that actually supports our position, not yours. lol, jesus man.

[Shea]

You mean if you paid less in taxes, you wouldn't have more money to spend hiring employees and growing your business?

Dirk

LOL, no no no Dirk that can't be what he is saying at all. Since, that is what I told him how many posts ago?

bwahahahahaha. Ah shit.

[Shea]

I blame white people.

I blame those nasty people that are only partially hyphenated.

[Kanabiis]

So let me get this straight. You jump on here telling us that we are all wet because our data shows that government transfer payments account for the majority of spending. That really (according to you) it's all just 6% of a budget that is unreported. You throw out a bunch of numbers with no backing then say that there are "entire organizations" that can't come up with the real numbers. THEN you post a link that actually supports our position, not yours. lol, jesus man.


If thats how you want to look at it, fine...

But for me, its more a matter of education, If i say something, then find out that it is incorrect or I get more facts, then I amend my statment. Which is what happened here....

And I stand corrected.......

But that still does not change my other argument, that the government spends WAY more then is bugeted... and taking that spending into account, the amount spent on welfare compared to actual monies spend is still less then the government pie chart from wikipedia posted earlier.

[salsashark]

I blame those nasty people that are only partially hyphenated.

Don't you mean... hyberbolic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Hyperbolic_functions.svg/520px-Hyperbolic_functions.svg.png

[Shea]

What about getting rid of the payroll tax and going straight to a sales tax? Would you be comfortable paying 3% on every purchase? Food? Movies? Cars? Houses? You are? How about 3% for the feds, 5% for the state and 2% for the city, and let's say 1% for regional things (like RTD, for example) So, now every time you spend something you're paying 11 percent. A $40,000 car is now $4400 more expensive. And then groceries, let's say $250 a month, $330 a year in taxes, and let's say you have a family phone bill of $150 a month: $198 in taxes for a year of service. That's nearly $5,000 in taxes for the year. Now what happens if you buys a boat, a car, a trailer, clothes, electricity, a second car, a motorcycle, etc. But you say you're already paying taxes on everything, right? But there's no income tax and therefore no tax returns. You pay as you go. You didn't overpay, you just paid.


All for a national sales tax. Eliminate payroll taxes, everyone immediately gets a 20-30% raise. Eliminate the business taxes, all business can hire more employees, buy equipment and stop paying for accountants and tax professionals. A balanced budget admendment and a provision that a increase in the sales tax rate requires a 3/4 majority in both houses and consent of each of the states legislatures. (pretty much to make sure it NEVER happens)

In other words: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

[dirkterrell]

I don't believe the costs of the wars are included in the 2008 budget numbers. The Bush administration always used "emergency" spending requests.


That amounted to $88 billion in 2008. Source (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8990/Chapter1.4.1.shtml#1084294). Compare that to the $1,527 billion spent on the various entitlement programs.



The U.S. tax code is fucked. I think we all can agree with that.


Yep.

Dirk

[Kanabiis]

You mean if you paid less in taxes, you wouldn't have more money to spend hiring employees and growing your business?

Dirk

Who knows.... Regan used to say that, we call it trickle down economics.... history showed just the opposite I believe.

This whole dont tax the rich or the poor will suffer has been debated since I was born, and yet history seems to show otherwise. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps shrinking.

Bush cut the tax rate for the rich, and we witnessed the largest loss of jobs during his presidency since the great depression....so

[Shea]

And I stand corrected.......

But that still does not change my other argument, that the government spends WAY more then is bugeted... and taking that spending into account, the amount spent on welfare compared to actual monies spend is still less then the government pie chart from wikipedia posted earlier.

You will get absolutely NO argument from me on this. Yes they do, hands down.

However, transfer payments still make up the bulk of the spending, regardless of what the actual numbers are. I would say that is so, even without the supplemental requests for war funding. But if there are hard numbers to the contrary I will revise my statement.

Either way we are bankrupting this nation faster then you (ok, maybe not you) can imagine.

[636chick]

I blame white people.

I blame the influx of trailer parks!!!!! :drink:


And Dana by the way :cry:

[Kanabiis]

The real problem here is a progressive tax... it only serves to continue the us vs. them mentality, and promotes the whole 'class warfare' that has dominiated this debate since before I was born.

Fair tax system may not be the best solution, but its better then what we have now.

Tax me on my purchases not my labor, I have been asking that for years.

Most Americans support the fair tax as far as I can tell, its your elected officials that do not.

Which leads to the next bigger problem, our elected officials.... unfortunately that is something no American seems to really want to address.... so as a result we get the same people in office for 40-50 years.... all the while they fuck the people that put them there.

So I tell people they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Unless you voted for Ron Paul... then at least you tried.

[Shea]

Who knows.... Regan used to say that, we call it trickle down economics.... history showed just the opposite I believe.

This whole dont tax the rich or the poor will suffer has been debated since I was born, and yet history seems to show otherwise. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps shrinking.

Bush cut the tax rate for the rich, and we witnessed the largest loss of jobs during his presidency since the great depression....so

Well, we can debate over high taxation vs. low taxation vs. "targeted" taxation all day long. Each camp has it's proponents and detractors.

I don't believe the Bush tax cuts caused our economic meltdown, though many want to tie the two together. I don't believe increased taxes "create" jobs, but if someone wants to defend that point I will listen.

I find it immoral and unethical that the government "owns" a portion of my labor" I do, however understand the need for some sort of taxation to fund the necessary (and VERY limited) functions of government. What we have today (in the jacked up, anti-market, anti-liberty, needlessly complicated tax code) actually inhibits growth and jobs rather then promoting anything of the sort.

Government is a woefully inefficient actor in the market doing more harm then good. Our current straits are a direct result of their attempt to manipulate the market.

[dirkterrell]

Who knows.... Regan used to say that, we call it trickle down economics.... history showed just the opposite I believe.


I'm talking about your case since you brought it up in the beginning. Pay less in taxes, you have more money. You can spend more.

Speaking as someone who started and ran a small business for 5 years, I can say unequivocally that if I hadn't had to spend so much time and money just keeping up with all the tax bullshit, I'd probably still be running it and it would be employing lots of people. I finally just got fed up dealing with government crap, instead of spending that time buildign the business, and sold it.

Dirk

[Shea]

I'm talking about your case since you brought it up in the beginning. Pay less in taxes, you have more money. You can spend more.

Speaking as someone who started and ran a small business for 5 years, I can say unequivocally that if I hadn't had to spend so much time and money just keeping up with all the tax bullshit, I'd probably still be running it and it would be employing lots of people. I finally just got fed up dealing with government crap, instead of spending that time buildign the business, and sold it.

Dirk

Yeah, it is absolutely ridiculous the hoops a business has to go through in order just to open the doors in the morning. Imagine a world without that crap...

As much as the anti-corporate crowd loves to point at the 10bil profit made in one quarter, they don't want to look at the 32bil they paid in taxes in the same period. How many people could have been hired for that amount of money? How much equipment could have been bought (and by extension people employed) for that? How much lower would have been the prices at the pump if they didn't have to cover that cost of doing business?

[Devaclis]

I blame the influx of trailer parks!!!!! :drink:


And Dana by the way :cry:

I have an alibi.

[Kanabiis]

Well, we can debate over high taxation vs. low taxation vs. "targeted" taxation all day long. Each camp has it's proponents and detractors.

I don't believe the Bush tax cuts caused our economic meltdown, though many want to tie the two together. I don't believe increased taxes "create" jobs, but if someone wants to defend that point I will listen.

I find it immoral and unethical that the government "owns" a portion of my labor" I do, however understand the need for some sort of taxation to fund the necessary (and VERY limited) functions of government. What we have today (in the jacked up, anti-market, anti-liberty, needlessly complicated tax code) actually inhibits growth and jobs rather then promoting anything of the sort.

Government is a woefully inefficient actor in the market doing more harm then good. Our current straits are a direct result of their attempt to manipulate the market.

And yet we agree again... I think we all agree on the same basic principles.... we just all have our own 'hot button' we are passionate about.

I am for the most part a true capitalist. I loath governemnt tax incentives for business, its anti-capitalist and injects forces that prevent and stifle true innovation. While regulatory means must be put in place to prevent corporations from selling say, bad meat or tainted toys or forced child labor, that should be the extent of government influance.

When some talking head on TV tells me that Ford failing will kill America I want to kill someone. True capitalist markets thrive on the death of bad corporations. If GM fails someone else will step in, thats how true capitalist markets work. Bad business flames the rise of good business.

Jet blue and Virgin airlines are proof of this. They rose from the failure of another.

If GM folds tomorrow those manufacturing plants will not disappear, someone will buy them, and hire new engineers and new labor forces to build a new product, it just wont be a GM product.

If a bad bank fails, then a good bank will rise up from the ashes as customers move to that good bank. By bailing out these industries you are actually causing other profitable companies to fail.

Why do these people hate America so much....

[dirkterrell]

The real problem here is a progressive tax... it only serves to continue the us vs. them mentality, and promotes the whole 'class warfare' that has dominiated this debate since before I was born.




This whole dont tax the rich or the poor will suffer has been debated since I was born, and yet history seems to show otherwise. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps shrinking.


Well, I'm definitely not rich but to claim that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes is nonsense. I'm with you on the sales tax idea.

Dirk

[Shea]

Well, I'm definitely not rich but to claim that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes is nonsense. I'm with you on the sales tax idea.

Dirk

The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.

I don't know Dirk, given the new administration you might very well be classified as "rich" :)

[dirkterrell]

I am for the most part a true capitalist. I loath governemnt tax incentives for business, its anti-capitalist and injects forces that prevent and stifle true innovation. While regulatory means must be put in place to prevent corporations from selling say, bad meat or tainted toys or forced child labor, that should be the extent of government influance.


Yes, government should exist basically as the means of protecting the rights of its citizens and providing for things that it is uniquely capable of doing. It should not be there to influence behavior or enforce anyone's particular moral views. Unfortunately as government grows, it goes from the former to the latter and saps the energy of the people. The politicians have done a bang up job of disguising the real problem by pitting us against each other. It's not the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the Democrats and the Republicans.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.

I don't know Dirk, given the new administration you might very well be classified as "rich" :)

I'm sure it won't be long. At the rate we're going, anyone with a job will be considered rich.

Dirk

[Kanabiis]

Well, I'm definitely not rich but to claim that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes is nonsense. I'm with you on the sales tax idea.

Dirk

I didnt claim they didn't pay their fair share, I said progressive tax scale creates the perception of 'class warfare' and its true.

I need to dredge up Warren Buffets tax speech from a few years ago.... where he pointed out that yes, his tax burden is a bit higher, but he also has so many loopholes and ways to dodge taxes that in the end his secretary making 45k a year will end up paying more of a percentage of her income in taxes then he will.

As for your question regarding having more employees if we paid less in taxes... I can't answer that.... Our company had a total gross sales last year of 865k give or take a thousand... total profit after payroll, bussiness expenses etc was only 90k, of that we paid taxes of just a little over 35k, a tax reduction of even 15% of that would have only been 5k, I couldn't have hired someone for that 5k in savings. So no, lower tax burden for us would not have created even one job, but we are a small company, only 6 employees.

[636chick]

I have an alibi.

Uhmmmm NO!!!! :slap:

Your Sig is giving me acid flashbacks :shocked::siesta:








Awwww the good ole day's

[dirkterrell]

As for your question regarding having more employees if we paid less in taxes... I can't answer that.... Our company had a total gross sales last year of 865k give or take a thousand... total profit after payroll, bussiness expenses etc was only 90k, of that we paid taxes of just a little over 35k, a tax reduction of even 15% of that would have only been 5k, I couldn't have hired someone for that 5k in savings. So no, lower tax burden for us would not have created even one job, but we are a small company, only 6 employees.

Yeah, but that's just the tax on profits which is usually pretty minor compared to payroll taxes.

Dirk

[Kanabiis]

Yeah, but that's just the tax on profits which is usually pretty minor compared to payroll taxes.

Dirk

Payroll tax cuts will not effect us, smaller then 50 employees.

Which is the crux of my complaint, this 'stimulus bill' is bullshit, small businesses like mine is the only growing sector of the economy, yet we received absolutely NOTHING in this bill. Not a single dime of savings.... BUT
income tax rasied by 3%.

Thanks Obama.... FUCK YOU

[Shea]

As for your question regarding having more employees if we paid less in taxes... I can't answer that.... Our company had a total gross sales last year of 865k give or take a thousand... total profit after payroll, bussiness expenses etc was only 90k, of that we paid taxes of just a little over 35k, a tax reduction of even 15% of that would have only been 5k, I couldn't have hired someone for that 5k in savings. So no, lower tax burden for us would not have created even one job, but we are a small company, only 6 employees.

I think you may be looking at it incorrectly. If you had that extra 5k what could you do with it? Sure it is not enough to hire people, but could you use it to grow your business? A 5k advertising campaign (that generates revenue for media that you use) that returns double that in new business?
New computer that makes your company more efficient? Down payment on a new vehicle? Etc, etc...

Compare that to what government does with it.

Bottom line is that you and your business are better engines of prosperity and growth then government will ever be. In "not taking" your profit, you generate far more economic activity, faster and with better results, then by government taking it and using it for their pet projects.

[Kanabiis]

I think you may be looking at it incorrectly. If you had that extra 5k what could you do with it? Sure it is not enough to hire people, but could you use it to grow your business? A 5k advertising campaign (that generates revenue for media that you use) that returns double that in new business?
New computer that makes your company more efficient? Down payment on a new vehicle? Etc, etc...

Compare that to what government does with it.

Bottom line is that you and your business are better engines of prosperity and growth then government will ever be. In "not taking" your profit, you generate far more economic activity, faster and with better results, then by government taking it and using it for their pet projects.

I completely concur..... I was answering the question about new jobs only....

Yes, I could do well for that 5k... but that wasnt the question :)

[dirkterrell]

Payroll tax cuts will not effect us, smaller then 50 employees.


My point is that you pay quite a bit of payroll taxes and if those were cut, you'd have a decent bit of money to work with.

I'm in full agreement with you about the "stimulus" bullshit. All it is doing is rewarding mismanagement and racking up enormous amounts of debt. It's a house of cards and will come crashing down. Maybe then people will realize how they've been duped by the crooks in DC.

Dirk

[Shea]

Maybe then people will realize how they've been duped by the crooks in DC.

Dirk

At this point my faith in humanity is completely in question. When faced with charts, graphs, numbers, history, they would much rather trust in the illusion of safety and pretty words.

[dirkterrell]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/ultramagbrion/image.jpg

[Kanabiis]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/ultramagbrion/image.jpg

Neither party offerd hope or change....

If McCain were elected we would still be in the same boat....

The Republican party had hope and change..... they decided to smear and character assasinate him....

[dirkterrell]

Neither party offerd hope or change....


Oh, the politicians offer plenty of hope on the campaigning side. Usually not much change on the governing side though.

Dirk

[YZFRydn]

Well, we can debate over high taxation vs. low taxation vs. "targeted" taxation all day long. Each camp has it's proponents and detractors.

I don't believe the Bush tax cuts caused our economic meltdown, though many want to tie the two together. I don't believe increased taxes "create" jobs, but if someone wants to defend that point I will listen.

I find it immoral and unethical that the government "owns" a portion of my labor" I do, however understand the need for some sort of taxation to fund the necessary (and VERY limited) functions of government. What we have today (in the jacked up, anti-market, anti-liberty, needlessly complicated tax code) actually inhibits growth and jobs rather then promoting anything of the sort.

Government is a woefully inefficient actor in the market doing more harm then good. Our current straits are a direct result of their attempt to manipulate the market.

Then you need to stand by because...

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc225/feedyourwall/obama_shep_print_final2.jpg

Create a bigger government and increase spending. All for, I, all opposed, well, you're shit out of luck.

I'm excited to watch my portfolio continue to shrink with the new changes.

By the way Dirk and Gixxer, very nice job on presenting your cases. IT's been interesting reading this.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y214/ultramagbrion/image.jpg
Sweet! Man, the economy sure tanked quick when he took office, huh?:(

[dapper]

:lol:
It's been awhile since the last time I was on here and this gave thy the giggles.

The following link has been around for a month or two, but it appears to have some information which might assist those wanting to understand a bit more about our beloved gov't.
I.O.U.S.A. (http://www.iousathemovie.com/) 30 min. flick


The current Pledge of Allegiance reads as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Now this really unique individual shared multiple things with thy two weeks ago. One was using the PoA above.
This guys point was about the Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) & Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) conflict.
I have understood the difference between money & currency.
The past actions of our gov't kinda makes one see the PoA as a wet dream. Why would government officials say silly things such as, "God Bless America" if the PoA intends for the officials to say 'God Bless Earthlings' or 'God Bless Humanity'?

Carry on...