| Author | Message | ||
     Garryb |
Rocketsprink +++ | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It might actually cost them more in taxes, since they would be paying less in wages Explain this. Taxes, labor, raw materials, rent, utilities, advertising, etc. are all business expenses that are deducted from gross earnings to arrive at net earnings. From net earnings are paid dividends. If taxes rise, cuts elsewhere are necessary in order to keep net earnings level or prices on products must be increased to keep net earnings level. The company only has control of certain costs. Labor is one of the main costs. If a company is considering offshoring jobs, a required reduction on expenses might be just the thing to seal the deal. Add to that a newly unionized work force, and the company is very likely to outsource the labor and pocket the savings to offset the higher taxes. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on October 30, 2008) | ||
| Garryb |
See what your tax savings will be: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/ | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Assuming your wages don't decrease. | ||
| Strokizator |
"If McCain wins, it once and for all seals the fact that elections are rigged." Starting with the 1960 election where dead people in Chicago voted, thus handing the election to Kennedy. I'm a conservative for life but apparently you get to vote democrat in perpetuity. What proof, if after numerous recounts in Florida using whatever criteria they could dream up still showed that Bush narrowly won, that any election your guy loses was therefore rigged? I am prepared for whatever outcome this election brings. If I must shrink my business I'll be sure to tell everyone exactly why they are losing their jobs. | ||
| Glitch |
Honestly I'm wondering how any of y'all can back either one of these guys as passionately as y'all are. Once, just once, I like to vote for someone, rather than voting against someone... | ||
| Strokizator |
Glitch, I agree 100%. I'm not a McCainiac but who the hell else is there that has a chance of winning? I'm not a huge Bush fan either but what does it say about the Dem candidates if they couldn't beat him. Neither party has anybody to get excited about. I think the best guys out there are afraid to run. Where the hell is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? | ||
| Glitch |
I think the best guys out there are There fixed that for ya... But honestly there have been some people I could get behind, but usually they're underfunded, or some such thing as that. I could get behind Herman, in a minute. http://www.hermancain.com/ | ||
| Teddagreek |
BTW I think therefore I am NOT a DEMOCRAT. I've been Independent since I was 18.. Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! According to McCain  I've read the facts.. Awwww why Tedda???? can't answer the questions??? Afraid that the TRUTH will come out? Has McCain EVER done anything with NEW PARTY?? how about DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTSof AMERICA???? Obama has been a card carrying MEMBER of BOTH. He has also associated with KNOWN subversives, NO I'm not refering to Ayres; although you can count him too. Rashid Khalidi has been a friend and dinner company to the obamas. He is a know ANTI-SEMETIC, former PLO spokesperson, former associate of YASSAR ARAFAT. Obama says that he does not know or associate with terrorists, YEAH RIGHT!!! Maybe they are just not acting terrorists, just ones TEACHING young people how to accept SOCIALISM. Here's another one go look up Riola Odinga. Here is a transcript of Sean Hannity's radio show, http://http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t= 958721 This next bit is from Wikkipedia. "According his website, Raila lists himself as a social democrat,[20] thus distancing himself from his late father, who was openly socialist. His party, the LDP, is affiliated to the Liberal International." "His oldest son, Fidel, is named after Fidel Castro[23] and their youngest child, Winnie, is named after Winnie Mandela" He likes these dictators so much he named his kids after them. You can't tell me that Odinga is not a liberal, socialist, who only wants the way of Marx, Islamic law, and SOCIALISM. Take a good look at the people who Obama supports and you will get a pretty good idea of who Obama is and what he really wants for this country. Here is another one of Obama's friends. Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. This bit is from wikkipedia on the P.L.O. "Founded by a meeting of 422 Palestinian national figures in Jerusalem in May 1964 following an earlier decision of the Arab League, its goal was the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle.[2] The original PLO Charter (written in 1968) stated that "Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit" and sought to "prohibit... the existence and activity" of Zionism.[3] These are often taken to mean the destruction of Israel"; here's more " The PLO was considered "the richest of all terrorist organizations" with $8-$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5-$2 billion from "donations, extortion, payoffs, illegal arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc.", according to a 1993 National Criminal Intelligence Service report. The Daily Telegraph reported in 1999 that the PLO had $50 billion in secret investments around the world.[6]". Shall we continue?? Sen. GOVERNMENT (aka Obama) has been friends with people like these?? Yet he is being considered for the presidency?? I really think that someone should take a good look at his background, friends, associates, and see if he would even pass a background check to get security clearance. After all as president he would be privy to some really top secret information. I'm not buying the conspiracy theory's.... Nor Smear and Fear tactics of McCain and his supporters. Where is he getting these lines? The lobbyists running his campaign? I'm just curious why you are so jaded toward against democrats. We are all Americans despite our political views..  | ||
| Court |
>>>>Nor Smear and Fear tactics of McCain and his supporters. Good call. Similarly I've little interest in the novel the 30 attorneys who went to Wasiila asking everyone they could find to tell them the dirt on Sarah Palin. Both candidates have every right to be embarrassed and ashamed. I'd expect more for $600,000,000. I'm thinking that old Special Olympics poster should be selling like hot cakes by next week. I've a vision of the photo in the USPS with a caption below it "The Best We Could Do". | ||
| Azxb9r |
The company only has control of certain costs. Labor is one of the main costs. One way for companies to lower their taxes is to increase their operating costs. The shop I work in will sometimes make a tool or equipment purchase before the end of the fiscal year to shift tax brackets. If a company reduces its labor costs, it cuts its operating expense, which raises its taxable income. Whether the reduction in taxes would offset the increase in wages would vary from case to case, but I don't see companies going to foreign labor based strictly on taxes. As far as inflated prices in response to increased taxes, I have no response. It could happen. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
One way for companies to lower their taxes is to increase their operating costs. The shop I work in will sometimes make a tool or equipment purchase before the end of the fiscal year to shift tax brackets. If a company reduces its labor costs, it cuts its operating expense, which raises its taxable income. Whether the reduction in taxes would offset the increase in wages would vary from case to case, but I don't see companies going to foreign labor based strictly on taxes. As far as inflated prices in response to increased taxes, I have no response. It could happen. Increasing deductible expenses will reduce the taxable income, but will also reduce the net after-tax income used to pay dividends. Let's say a C-Corp company has gross revenues of $10,000,000 at the end of the year. Let's say that they have $8,000,000 of deductible expenses. This leaves them with $2,000,000 of net pre-tax income. Let's say that current taxes are 40%. The company would pay $800,000 in taxes. This would leave $1,200,000 in net after-tax income. The company then declares a dividend. Let's for the sake of argument assume that 100% of the net after-tax income will be declared as dividend and that they company currently has 12,000,000 shares outstanding. This would give them a $.10 per share dividend. Let's say that the company then has the tax rate increased. The new tax rate is 50%. On $2,000,000 of pre-tax earnings, the company would now owe $1,000,000 leaving $1,000,000. We have now dropped the declared dividend to $.083 per share. That is a 17% decrease in dividends. Doesn't sound like much, but a $.01-$.02 per share reduction is enough to substantially affect stock price. Falling stock prices affect the company's ability to grow, raise money, acquire new firms, etc. In order to keep he dividend at the $.10 per share, the company doesn't just need to decrease costs by the $200,000 additional in taxes. The company needs to reduce expenses by $400,000 in order to net $200,000 more in income. Given the same $10,000,000 of gross earnings, the company would have to have expenses of $7,600,000. That would leave net pre-tax income at $2,400,000. The company would pay $1,200,000 in taxes to net $1,200,000 in after tax income. That $400,000 reduction in expenses represents a 5% cost savings. It doesn't sound like much, but 5% is a huge number in the corporate world to trim out of a budget. Increasing expenditures doesn't solve any problems. The company would be increasing the deduction but would be paying for it out of the same pot used to pay dividends. Dividends make a HUGE difference particularly in mature businesses where there is much less growth in stock price than small and medium cap companies. Investors in company shares depend on the dividends for income. If the income drops, the investor will seek shares elsewhere paying a higher dividend. The share price falls. A company seeking to reduce costs will cut them where they can and they will increase the price where they can. In a price competitive market (like the automotive industry), the price is very difficult to increase to cover the additional tax. In our example, the company would have to raise the price by 4% to increase the gross earnings. Again, a 4% increase in price is large. A 4% price increase on a bike priced at $11,995 would result in an increase of $480. People will buy one bike over another for much less in price difference. It isn't as simple as "raise the taxes on those dirty corporations". There are much larger issues at hand. | ||
| Azxb9r |
It isn't as simple as "raise the taxes on those dirty corporations". There are much larger issues at hand. I do not disagree with you there. The issue as I see it is, the govt. needs money, it has to come from somewhere. Everybody will need to contribute, but some are in a position to contribute more than others. Going back to your numbers, a tax increase from 40% to 50% would indeed be a massive hit to absorb. An increase of 1% or 2% on the other hand would be much easier to deal with, while still providing a substantial increase in revenue for the govt. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I do not disagree with you there. The issue as I see it is, the govt. needs money, it has to come from somewhere. Everybody will need to contribute, but some are in a position to contribute more than others. Going back to your numbers, a tax increase from 40% to 50% would indeed be a massive hit to absorb. An increase of 1% or 2% on the other hand would be much easier to deal with, while still providing a substantial increase in revenue for the govt. The government doesn't need more money. The government needs to spend less. If we can't afford it, we don't fund it. Let those who want to pull out of the social security system do so and use the 12.4% of income in a personal account. Even with large hits like our market is going through now, it's better in the long run. We don't need free healthcare. We don't need free prescription drugs for the elderly. We don't need to be funding medicare. It would be nice if we were only talking about a 1% or 2% tax increase on companies. The Windfall Profits Tax is proposed to be 25% companies whose profits rose by more than 10%. So if your company's profits rose by 11%, you'd see an increase in taxes by 25%. Do we really believe that we wouldn't see some industrial strength cooking of the books to keep the growth number below 10%? When you add in the Federal Tax, the payroll tax, the new national healthcare tax, and a closing of the corporate tax loop holes and deductions, 10% would be a very minor increase. Again, corporations don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from their customers and pass them on to the Federal Government. Workers will be squeezed, jobs will be outsourced, and prices will rise with a universal increase in corporate taxes. WE will pay for higher product costs or will be paid lower wages or both as a result of increases in corporate taxes.} | ||
| Garryb |
Mccain and Rashid Khalidi: McCain Funded Work Of Palestinian His Campaign Hopes To Tie To Obama During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.) The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes." McCain and Acorn: Miami Dade College press release: Miami, Florida – February 20, 2006 ¯ Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform. The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker along with elected officials, immigrants and key local and national leaders. .. A similar rally with Sen. McCain is planned for New York City on February 27 The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN, Catholic Legal Services - Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia Vota en Acción, Service Employees International Union, and UNITE HERE. (Message edited by garryb on October 31, 2008) (Message edited by garryb on October 31, 2008) | ||
| Rocketsprink |
"Careful, your class envy is showing." Republican bullshit at it's finest, spewed from one of their rank and file. Your ignorance is showing...again. Ft bstrd, I envy NO ONE. | ||
| Rocketsprink |
You're right bstrd. We don't need free health care. But it seems strange that if you're a worker, you can't have it, but if you're a prisoner, you get it. Priorities are a little f'd up. Not that it surprises me. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Republican bullshit at it's finest, spewed from one of their rank and file. Your ignorance is showing...again. Ft bstrd, I envy NO ONE. You evidently do envy those who are the most productive in our society and create the most jobs. Only someone with the kind of class envy Obama needs to win would believe that Those who pay 70% of our taxes aren't "paying their share". I did have one figure wrong, though. The top 10% pay 70%. Here's the breakdown. I'll type slowly. For 2006 Tax Year Top 1% Paid 39.89% of all taxes Top 5% Paid 60.14% of all taxes Top 10% Paid 70.79% of all taxes Top 25% Paid 86.27% of all taxes Top 50% Paid 97.01% of all taxes The <50%Paid 2.99% of all taxes Source? THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Let's not let the facts confuse the issue. Go back to sleep. Nothing to see here. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
You're right bstrd. We don't need free health care. But it seems strange that if you're a worker, you can't have it, but if you're a prisoner, you get it. Priorities are a little f'd up. Not that it surprises me. When Congress begins by changing the tort reform with regard to medical malpractice lawsuits in an effort to help reduce the single largest expenditure for EVERY medical practice, medical malpractice insurance, I will believe that they are sincere in their interest to actually fix the problem. Why are the costs so high? bureaucratic red tape and frivolous law suits. The good news is that once the government takes over the health care in this country, there will no longer be medical malpractice lawsuits. It will become illegal to sue the Federal Government for errors in medical care. I live in TN. We have lived under TennCare since that Vanilla Waffer chomping retard enacted that failed program. We went from 6% of the population on public medical assistance to 29% of the Tenn population. It is the single largest expenditure on the TN budget. It is bankrupting our state. It is also the largest money grab in the state. The Federal system will be TennCare on steroids. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Oh, and why not try to refute the FACTS presented. You might learn something. | ||
| Azxb9r |
The government doesn't need more money. The government needs to spend less. Cutting spending would be good for the future, but we still need to deal with the tab that has already been run up. The amount of money spent on social security, medicare, and prescription drug programs are chump change compared to the amount of money allocated for the great "bail out". Then there is the financial abyss known as Iraq. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it is fair or not, people that are uber-wealthy are able to contribute more money than people who are not. The people with the most money are not necessarily the most productive members of society. Aaron Rodgers just got a 5 yr extension on his contract that is worth $11M a year. As a football fan, I enjoy watching the games, but I would not say that the athletes are the most productive members of society. I would also say that Aaron can afford a lot more in taxes(without suffering any hardship) than someone like me. It has nothing to do with class envy, it is just reality. Healthcare is a whole new can of worms. Arizona has a shortage of doctors, due in part to the fact that we have some of the highest malpractice ins. rates in the country. The thing that really kills me though, is the local hospitals (read taxpayers) picking up the bill for healthcare for illegal immigrants. Hospitals are obligated to treat anyone that walks through their door. Between illegals coming to the hospitals on their own, and all the people that the border patrol brings in for medical treatment, our healthcare system is being stretched beyond limits. The real impact of this falls on the citizens, between the price of health ins., long waiting times for treatment, and the number of people who either cannot afford or cannot get health ins. The system is broken.} | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The best way to eliminate the debt is to quit adding to it. | ||
| Azxb9r |
As true as that statement is, do you really think that the govt. is going to voluntarily cut back, regardless of who is in the oval office? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Voluntarily is a matter of necessity. At some point in time, you overtax the public and stall out the tax base. "For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill Strict constructionist Constitutional interpretation is the key to our survival. None of the major entitlement programs are provided through provisions within the Constitution. We WILL cut spending one way or another. When the check from the government bounces, game over. | ||
| Azxb9r |
Churchill is as quotable as anyone in history  | ||
| Rocketsprink |
The best way to eliminate the debt is to quit adding to it. Yep. and BOTH sides could use that advice. It's too bad it's about sides, and not unity. Oh well. | ||
| Garryb |
If we look at the largest budget deficit ever, a huge contributer is IRAQ, the reconstruction projects, the war, the military budget, the contractors like blackwater etc. john mccain isn't proposing anything for iraq that is different than what bush is doing, so we will run the same deficits if he is elected. (Message edited by garryb on November 01, 2008) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If we look at the largest budget deficit ever, a huge contributer is IRAQ, the reconstruction projects, the war, the military budget, the contractors like blackwater etc. john mccain isn't proposing anything for iraq that is different than what bush is doing, so we will run the same deficits if he is elected. At $10B per month, Iraq is a bargain compared to the unfunded debt in medicare, social security, and the universal healthcare. It's unpopular, but it isn't anywhere close to the expense and cost savings we need. Iraq will wind down in due time. There is no and will be no "exit strategy" for the "quagmire" of the entitlement programs promised and soon to be promised. Those promises will be broken only by complete economic collapse. | ||
| Ryker77 |
FYI - both McCain and Obama have had almost 2 years to put tax plans before the senate. Niether has done anything. TALK IS CHEAP. 2nd. Both of them only talk about 1 or 2 taxable items. Hell I've got about 6 differet taxes on my phone bill that I must pay with my paycheck that has 5 taxes taken out of it. The phone is used in my house that has three taxes on it. I then drive to work in my car that I paid sales tax on buring gas that has 2 taxes on it and then I also pay road taxes for the plate. Either way we are screwed with these two •••••• choices. I voted for Bob Barr to send a message. Almost wrote down Bart Simpson. | ||
| Garryb |
120 billion for the last 5 years is 600 billion; plus 3 more years from the latest withdrawal plan is roughly trillion. You would think it should get us at least a small discount on iraqi oil. Your right, I'm sure there is no better way to spend a 960 billion $ (Message edited by garryb on November 02, 2008) (Message edited by garryb on November 02, 2008) |
