oh god this is the 'nect i remember and love! we need more of these hilarious political fights... filled with hope, moxie, a fact or two, a lie or two, and butchery of the english language
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
Exactly. Leave religion and fear mongering (ie "treasonous Fed...what we'd do to him if we got him to Texas...") at home. Better yet, just leave it altogether.
Then come back and we can talk about real ideological differences, strategies and solutions to make this country great again.
This AttackWatch ad is hilarious. If someone told me that this was a joke ad put together by some clever Republican bloggers, I'd have believed it hands down.
carville wants obama to '... fire a lot of people'. this is the type of hate speech that may incite violence against democratic politicians therefore i have reported it (and you should as well) to http://www.attackwatch.com/
FRaC - so... you are posting a link to a website in order to incite like-minded individuals to flame said site. I think you feel threatened and are resorting to throwing internet poo instead of actually engaging in a meaningful discussion.
toast - you are attacking me for alerting the president of potential attacks before they start. your attack is being reported to http://www.attackwatch.com/
FRaC is your typical conservative (and buckeye), incapable of engaging in meaningful debate, but instead content to ride simple-minded ideology to this country's destruction. Because it's fun!!!
Also, a great Krugman article for all the centrists out there wanting to blame both parties for the mess in Washington:
Actually won and done I think FRaC *is* capable of meaningful debate.
Boehner just spoke on NPR throwing down the gauntlet by saying the super commission (or whatever it's called) CANNOT propose ANY new taxes, full stop.
FRaC I did accuse you (on the other thread) of being childish, and I apologize for that word; I should have used non-constructive. Boehner's attitude, on the other hand: that's fucking childish. Does any reasonable person honestly believe that we can get out of this economic mess without IN SOME WAY raising revenue?! Does anyone honestly believe that current tax breaks ARE NOT in reality SPENDING?!
on the fence:"This is last congress and how business friendly they scored"
Did you read that PDF yourself? Seems like lowering taxes is the only thing small-business is concerned with. As soon as we get taxes to 0 the quicker every man, woman and baby can become small business owners.
The "taxes are too high" is a game that can be played at any level higher than 0. Taxes are at an all time low (maybe not in pre-industrial revolution America), but this has become an absolute obsession by a lot of people. The group that put that PDF for instance. On the Fence, is lowered tax the only thing that keeps you from becoming a millionaire? I ask because a lot of people honestly believe that.
From my own experience of running a business in the US, health care coverage was one of the most difficult things to afford, especially in a recession. Federal taxes were pretty small (it's the various state taxes that were the killer, especially if you conducted business in more than one). Health-care reform is an item that specifically helps out small business owners looking to grow. Your PDF puts the reform as a small-business unfriendly item. I call BS.
How does the health care reform package that is currently proposed help small businesses? That would be awesome if it did, but saying it doesn't make it so.
Donna, I think calling the tax cuts SPENDING is a fabulous idea.
i've heard this strategy many times (including my lefty 'progressive' brother) - calling the tea party hypocrites for wanting to reduce spending but not increase tax rates. here is what 'tax cuts = spending' means: the government collects all income and then distributes money to the citizens. it's actually just the opposite.
also note that a tax rate does not mean the government gets a fixed amount of money. as the economy recovers (once we're past 2012, unfortunately) tax 'revenues' will increase.
increasing tax rates does not necessarily mean increasing tax revenues. this is the problem california has right now - high tax rates, increased spending, and ridiculous government union hiring/wages/benefits have destroyed cali's economy and have given california the worst business climate in the country.
The whole ideology around not raising taxes is just a way to justify the concentration of wealth to the top 1%, the real owners of the country, and make it seem as if it is in the interest of the populus. The whole right wing agenda is only possible in a democracy if they can convince the populus to vote against their own interests. How do you do this? You do it by attaching issues which are really based on corporate greed to ideology, and make it so that the opposition to these issues becomes contrary to the ideology of the populus. Even if the numbers are off, they can just say that they are morally opposed. Tax increase has been skewed into a debate over "intrusive govenment." They don't complain about government being too intrusive when it comes to regulating gay marraige. Such hippocracy. I am honestly dissopointed in the lack of reaction and the blindness among the people in this country.
FRaC - tell me how reducing, or continuing record low, taxes for the super wealthy help out economy? It has been shown over and over that the wealthy will not spend any tax savings (they already have that disposable income), they just save it, so that money doesn't go anywhere near the economy.
Furthermore, these so-called 'job creators' (which is bs) will "trickle down" to stimulate the economy, but we've proven once again that this is not the case. Companies will not spend or hire until there is demand, which is generated by consumer spending (the wealthy spend the same, regardless of economy or taxes). Demand creates jobs!
No one is saying that raising taxes on everyone is good, no one. What people are saying, largely in response to the TP's obsession with the deficit (again, everyone acknowledges that it needs to be reduced, but the timing is just awful politics, treasonous, some would say ;-) ), is that there needs to be balance.
This 'my way or the highway' mentality is purely childish politics and is continuing to drive our country down. Until they can get their pacifiers out of their asses and come to the table to negotiate, we'll get nowhere but worse (which I'd argue many of the TP/R's want, worse economy means more chance for their election).
Balance. We need a centrist, balanced approach to politics and economy.
Low taxes = good
Lower taxes for small businesses = good
Reasonably sized gov't = good
Lower taxes on true job creators = good (NOT the wealthy)
Frowning, pouting, walking out of negotiation meetings = BAD
there there:"How does the health care reform package that is currently proposed help small businesses? That would be awesome if it did, but saying it doesn't make it so."
Not proposed. Passed.
From the horse's mouth (whitehouse). You can still claim it's bad, but they have at least considered the effect of the plan on small-business (if you consider lengthy studies to be 'consideration').
frac:"high tax rates... ...have destroyed cali's economy and have given california the worst business climate in the country."
California's budget shortfall is close to equal to the disparity between how much money it gives to fed and how little it receives back.
But you knew that.
California's economy is still one of the strongest in the world. If Cali was a country, it would crack the top 10 GDP list of the world. Not bad for 30 million people. Yes, the recession sucks, but you gotta have some perspective man.
Yeah, I've read that stuff. I actually wanted it from rusty!'s mouth!
There is lot of hope in that plan. I think at best, the plan might help insurance from not getting really really expensive, and just stay really expensive. In other words, costs are still going to go up.
Here's my health care reform suggestion: Insurance companies should be mandated to stop confusing cash for profits. With that new bill, my premium money still won't go for health and wellness, or into an account where I can use it later, hasslefree, if I get sick.
For as much as the Rs like to say that the private sector are the job creators in this country, the fact of the matter is the public sector makes up a very large percentage of American employment. Regardless of whatever your ideological beliefs are, that is a fact. If you massively cut funding to the public sector, there is going to be massive public sector job losses. Again, fact. Sure, you can believe that by cutting taxes the private sector will be able to absorb some of those job losses, but the problem is it is at best a zero sum game. By cutting public sector funding, i.e. jobs, you are not necessarily making those jobs up in the private sector. The truth is you need both public sector and private sector employment and ideally the private and public sector should be working in ways to mutually benefit domestic economic growth. Pretty simple, when you take ideology and dogma out of the picture.
Frac tax cuts and loopholes are spending, especially when companies get breaks that outsource work and production and then horde their gains rather than put it back into the US economy. If a strict penallty was in place to discourage outsourcing so that is no longer profitable companies would stay, but instead we reward them. This makes no sense. Taxes should be at an equal rate among everyone regardless if they make 30k or 300k. Tax breaks should only be given if they are donating to an NPO, hiring people, investing in innovation, etc...Not just for making more by way of destructive practices. Also, we need money to pay for shit as a country. Who do you think really benefits from the infrastructure of the country? Do you think that our car oriented sprawl city infrastructure is in place to serve the people? No, it is most beneficial to the Wal-Mart that relies on it to bring goods and people to them and sell them cheap shit. If our infrastructure was there to serve the people it would be much different. Companies benefit from infrastructure and dictate its form and should help pay for it!
What if we use Homeland Security dollars for infrastructure? After all, infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc) are there first and foremost for security reasons anyways (Walmart and the rest of us just get to use it.).
I'm enjoying this discussion and not going to respond to every single thing even though I'd kinda like to. I have to get some work done!
But I'll say again: the biggest cash flow impediment to my small business is health insurance. To insure my family privately through my small business would cost us about half of what I charge in fees in a typical month. And I know many families who would pursue entrepreneurship much more vigorously if they didn't HAVE to have at least one family member employed solely for the health insurance coverage. The current health care plan is a mess, but it's possibly a first step towards overall reform of a severely broken system. How can the supposed "pro-business" arm of the right claim that removing insurance from its current ties to employment would be BAD for business owners?
Bank of America, job creater???lighten regulation so they can create jobs??? really? they plan to layoff 30,000 people.
Large corporations are making more than ever, so where are those jobs?
Can it be that they are intentionally not creating jobs so Obama can fail and they can get a puppet in the White House to deregulate things so that they can make even more money???? Not too hard to believe, the TP is doing it, and afterall thats who they work for.
Is this a democracy or an oligarchy cloaked in the illusion of democracy?
One the particular issues that I have with tax reform is not the actual taxes... but deductions.
We all know that everyone who owns a business sometimes cheats a little with writing off a lunch that wasn't really a business expense or buying a printer that you really wanted but your business had no real use for.
Buying property, for a business, makes little economic sense as most businesses as lease holders pay for the general operation and maintenance of a building. However, a business buying its own real estate makes perfect sense since it allows a business to accumulate wealth and commercial real estate value grows at a pretty constant rate.
But, for simplicity's sake, let's say a business has $200,000 in gross revenue. And for simplicity's sake, let's say the tax rate is 39%. It buys a $250,000 unit ($200,000 for just the building) or It can also rent the same unit for $2,000 a month.
If it buys, it can write off only $5,128 plus interest $~13,000 in the first year, but we'll say $5,000 as average over the entire life of the loan, giving us a total of about $10,128. If the business rents, that write off is $24,000 for the year.
So, if it buys, we have a net revenue of $189,872 with $74,050.08 in taxes. We have an net income, ignoring all other costs, of $115,821.92. On the renting side, we have a net revenue of $176,000 with $68,640 in taxes. We have an net income, ignoring all other costs, of $107,360.
But... property owners have to pay property taxes and insurance. I'd say a general Business Owner's Policy would run around $2,000 for a small office. With a millage rate of around 0.04, property taxes should run about $10,000. So, if it buys, we have a more accurate net revenue of $177,872 with $69,370.08 in taxes giving us a net income of $108,501.92.
A savings of a whopping $1,141.92! That $1141.92 is nowhere near going to cover the cost of a bookkeeper and a lot of your time or the cost of one really good accountant to manage the unbelievable headache that comes with owning versus renting. I'd prefer it if there was some way to make commercial property ownership more lucrative.
Other countries offer plenty of credits and arrangements to companies with lowering their tax burdens through smart and compliant options those companies choose to participate in or not. Instead of changing the tax structure, I'd like to see more incentives to companies who spend a lot particularly on well-placed, well-built and and well-planned real estate.
Donna: "the biggest cash flow impediment to my small business is health insurance"
Time for 'Story Time with Rusty'? You betcha!
Looks like I will be pulling in more money this year than last one. But not by much. In 2010 all my income was US based. 2011 most my income is from Canada (eh?). For tax purposes I'm a small business (multiple clients, range of services, etc...)
Here's the kicker. My estimated total tax burden this year is less than what I would have had to pay last year in health coverage alone.
This opens up all kinds of opportunities for me. I haven't applied for a salaried position since spring time. Don't need to. I'm looking to expand my business instead.
Eventually when I am making big money, I'll pay my share of taxes, and concept of... who am I kidding. I'll never make big money.
But health care issue seriously hurts smallest of small businesses. Very anti-American IMO.
"Mommy, is that man homeless or a small business owner?" "That's Rusty honey. Haulin' ass. Gettin' paid."
won and done: For as much as the Rs like to say that the private sector are the job creators in this country, the fact of the matter is the public sector makes up a very large percentage of American employment.
FRaC, you seem to forget that the public sector consists of teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, public transportation workers as well as politicians, bureaucrats and the cadre of other public officials and managers that I couldn't say what they do. I am all for cutting waste where possible and creating a more efficient public sector, but the above public workers do not make us Greece; they make us the functioning civil society that has existed in this country for the last 235 years.
won and done: '... the public sector consists of teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, public transportation workers as well as politicians, bureaucrats and thecadre of other public officials and managers that I couldn't say what they do.'
that's the problem! - government jobs have been expanding, dare i say progressing, for many years now. at the current rate of public sector employment, spending, and debt we are destined for a greek tragedy.
i doesn't have to be this way - we can learn from mistakes made by other countries and change our current path. join me; come to the dark side.
I am all for cutting waste where possible and creating a more efficient public sector.
The problem with the R's position is you cannot make blanket cuts to government spending for ideological reasons without effecting the necessary parts of the public sector. We need teachers, police officers, fire departments, bus service and yes, even librarians and a sprinkling of bureaucrats. The more you cut, cut, cut to reduce spending, the more these functioning parts of the public sector are effected. Furthermore you do not improve the unemployment picture with these cuts; you make it worse, dragging down the overall health of the economy. We all agree that we need a long term deficit reduction plan, but not at the expense of jobs or the overall health of the economy as the Republicans have proposed.
What toaster said. Locally, my building permit submittals are now reviewed and approved by an employee of Homeland Security. WTF? On the other hand, the teachers at my school deserve every damn penny of salary and benefits they get plus 2-3 times more for the job they do every day.
there is no there, are you paying for you own health insurance? By "taxes and insurance", do you mean general liability insurance, or health? Also, you have a commercial lease on a space where you provide services to a lot of clientele on site, yes? Most architecture firms don't do that, so I would guess rent on commercial space would be lower for a similarly-sized small architecture firm. I could be wrong.
in 1986, the federal government had 1.07 million civilian employees, in 2009, the government had 1.28 million employees.
the US population in 1986 was around 226 million or so, the US population around 2009 was 307 million. so... federal government employment rose roughly 19% while total US population rose 35%. so - technically it's true that the government has grown, it actually grew at a slower rate than the total population - which would tell us that either it's more efficient or probably understaffed. if you crunch the numbers you'll see something similar at the state and local levels.
The Implosion of the Democrat Party (hang on while I get some champagne...)
Most of the fear and loathing of "the other side", whatever that may be, comes from misinformation and exaggerating extreme views.
please report misinformation and exaggerated extreme views to: http://www.attackwatch.com/
what's the point?
to stop attacks before they start!
get the facts.
fight the smears.
no, what's your point? passive aggressive behavior on a blog is the lowest possible form of dialect.
.
oh god this is the 'nect i remember and love! we need more of these hilarious political fights... filled with hope, moxie, a fact or two, a lie or two, and butchery of the english language
AT lletdownl please report lies to: http://www.attackwatch.com/
missing an "ic" dialectic I mean
Thanks FRaC, ive reported most of your entries :)
you're welcome lletdownl ^.^ ~ only by working together can we fight the smears because mother earth knows they didn't end with the 2008 election
http://www.attackwatch.com/
http://www.fightthesmears.com/
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
Exactly. Leave religion and fear mongering (ie "treasonous Fed...what we'd do to him if we got him to Texas...") at home. Better yet, just leave it altogether.
Then come back and we can talk about real ideological differences, strategies and solutions to make this country great again.
This AttackWatch ad is hilarious. If someone told me that this was a joke ad put together by some clever Republican bloggers, I'd have believed it hands down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
^ that is a joke ad put together by some clever republican bloggers
please report them to http://www.attackwatch.com/
I heard my neighbor talking about Obama ans saying some really mean stuff that I don't think was true. Should I report him to AttackWatch?
Is there a reward or something?
james carville: what should the white house do? panic!
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/14/opinion/carville-white-house-advice/
carville wants obama to '... fire a lot of people'. this is the type of hate speech that may incite violence against democratic politicians therefore i have reported it (and you should as well) to http://www.attackwatch.com/
EKE, anyone who criticizes the president should be reported to http://www.attackwatch.com/
we need to stop the attacks on the president before they start and that is your responsibility
the reward? a civil, adult society where decisions and discussions are controlled by our great leader
FRaC - so... you are posting a link to a website in order to incite like-minded individuals to flame said site. I think you feel threatened and are resorting to throwing internet poo instead of actually engaging in a meaningful discussion.
obama has been a major disappointment, go ahead report me
toast - you are attacking me for alerting the president of potential attacks before they start. your attack is being reported to http://www.attackwatch.com/
you too, F.T.B. (for the bamster?)
This is last congress and how business friendly they scored http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/Final%20Scorecard%20Version%20Oct%206%202010-1%5B1%5D2.pdf
FRaC is your typical conservative (and buckeye), incapable of engaging in meaningful debate, but instead content to ride simple-minded ideology to this country's destruction. Because it's fun!!!
Also, a great Krugman article for all the centrists out there wanting to blame both parties for the mess in Washington:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/krugman-the-centrist-cop-out.html
Actually won and done I think FRaC *is* capable of meaningful debate.
Boehner just spoke on NPR throwing down the gauntlet by saying the super commission (or whatever it's called) CANNOT propose ANY new taxes, full stop.
FRaC I did accuse you (on the other thread) of being childish, and I apologize for that word; I should have used non-constructive. Boehner's attitude, on the other hand: that's fucking childish. Does any reasonable person honestly believe that we can get out of this economic mess without IN SOME WAY raising revenue?! Does anyone honestly believe that current tax breaks ARE NOT in reality SPENDING?!
Donna, I think calling the tax cuts SPENDING is a fabulous idea.
on the fence:"This is last congress and how business friendly they scored"
Did you read that PDF yourself? Seems like lowering taxes is the only thing small-business is concerned with. As soon as we get taxes to 0 the quicker every man, woman and baby can become small business owners.
The "taxes are too high" is a game that can be played at any level higher than 0. Taxes are at an all time low (maybe not in pre-industrial revolution America), but this has become an absolute obsession by a lot of people. The group that put that PDF for instance. On the Fence, is lowered tax the only thing that keeps you from becoming a millionaire? I ask because a lot of people honestly believe that.
From my own experience of running a business in the US, health care coverage was one of the most difficult things to afford, especially in a recession. Federal taxes were pretty small (it's the various state taxes that were the killer, especially if you conducted business in more than one). Health-care reform is an item that specifically helps out small business owners looking to grow. Your PDF puts the reform as a small-business unfriendly item. I call BS.
Keep calling them rusty. BS might even listen to you.
How does the health care reform package that is currently proposed help small businesses? That would be awesome if it did, but saying it doesn't make it so.
Donna, I think calling the tax cuts SPENDING is a fabulous idea.
i've heard this strategy many times (including my lefty 'progressive' brother) - calling the tea party hypocrites for wanting to reduce spending but not increase tax rates. here is what 'tax cuts = spending' means: the government collects all income and then distributes money to the citizens. it's actually just the opposite.
as chris matthews said, it's an important distinction -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRmIZtpYFU
also note that a tax rate does not mean the government gets a fixed amount of money. as the economy recovers (once we're past 2012, unfortunately) tax 'revenues' will increase.
increasing tax rates does not necessarily mean increasing tax revenues. this is the problem california has right now - high tax rates, increased spending, and ridiculous government union hiring/wages/benefits have destroyed cali's economy and have given california the worst business climate in the country.
*queue laffer curve jokes now*
Don't try to redefine SPENDING, frac. Nobody is that dumb.
The whole ideology around not raising taxes is just a way to justify the concentration of wealth to the top 1%, the real owners of the country, and make it seem as if it is in the interest of the populus. The whole right wing agenda is only possible in a democracy if they can convince the populus to vote against their own interests. How do you do this? You do it by attaching issues which are really based on corporate greed to ideology, and make it so that the opposition to these issues becomes contrary to the ideology of the populus. Even if the numbers are off, they can just say that they are morally opposed. Tax increase has been skewed into a debate over "intrusive govenment." They don't complain about government being too intrusive when it comes to regulating gay marraige. Such hippocracy. I am honestly dissopointed in the lack of reaction and the blindness among the people in this country.
FRaC - tell me how reducing, or continuing record low, taxes for the super wealthy help out economy? It has been shown over and over that the wealthy will not spend any tax savings (they already have that disposable income), they just save it, so that money doesn't go anywhere near the economy.
Furthermore, these so-called 'job creators' (which is bs) will "trickle down" to stimulate the economy, but we've proven once again that this is not the case. Companies will not spend or hire until there is demand, which is generated by consumer spending (the wealthy spend the same, regardless of economy or taxes). Demand creates jobs!
No one is saying that raising taxes on everyone is good, no one. What people are saying, largely in response to the TP's obsession with the deficit (again, everyone acknowledges that it needs to be reduced, but the timing is just awful politics, treasonous, some would say ;-) ), is that there needs to be balance.
This 'my way or the highway' mentality is purely childish politics and is continuing to drive our country down. Until they can get their pacifiers out of their asses and come to the table to negotiate, we'll get nowhere but worse (which I'd argue many of the TP/R's want, worse economy means more chance for their election).
Balance. We need a centrist, balanced approach to politics and economy.
Low taxes = good
Lower taxes for small businesses = good
Reasonably sized gov't = good
Lower taxes on true job creators = good (NOT the wealthy)
Frowning, pouting, walking out of negotiation meetings = BAD
Alas, common sense is not common at all. Who can argue against balance and sensibility?
there there:"How does the health care reform package that is currently proposed help small businesses? That would be awesome if it did, but saying it doesn't make it so."
Not proposed. Passed.
From the horse's mouth (whitehouse). You can still claim it's bad, but they have at least considered the effect of the plan on small-business (if you consider lengthy studies to be 'consideration').
frac:"high tax rates... ...have destroyed cali's economy and have given california the worst business climate in the country."
California's budget shortfall is close to equal to the disparity between how much money it gives to fed and how little it receives back.
But you knew that.
California's economy is still one of the strongest in the world. If Cali was a country, it would crack the top 10 GDP list of the world. Not bad for 30 million people. Yes, the recession sucks, but you gotta have some perspective man.
Yeah, I've read that stuff. I actually wanted it from rusty!'s mouth!
There is lot of hope in that plan. I think at best, the plan might help insurance from not getting really really expensive, and just stay really expensive. In other words, costs are still going to go up.
Here's my health care reform suggestion: Insurance companies should be mandated to stop confusing cash for profits. With that new bill, my premium money still won't go for health and wellness, or into an account where I can use it later, hasslefree, if I get sick.
For as much as the Rs like to say that the private sector are the job creators in this country, the fact of the matter is the public sector makes up a very large percentage of American employment. Regardless of whatever your ideological beliefs are, that is a fact. If you massively cut funding to the public sector, there is going to be massive public sector job losses. Again, fact. Sure, you can believe that by cutting taxes the private sector will be able to absorb some of those job losses, but the problem is it is at best a zero sum game. By cutting public sector funding, i.e. jobs, you are not necessarily making those jobs up in the private sector. The truth is you need both public sector and private sector employment and ideally the private and public sector should be working in ways to mutually benefit domestic economic growth. Pretty simple, when you take ideology and dogma out of the picture.
Frac tax cuts and loopholes are spending, especially when companies get breaks that outsource work and production and then horde their gains rather than put it back into the US economy. If a strict penallty was in place to discourage outsourcing so that is no longer profitable companies would stay, but instead we reward them. This makes no sense. Taxes should be at an equal rate among everyone regardless if they make 30k or 300k. Tax breaks should only be given if they are donating to an NPO, hiring people, investing in innovation, etc...Not just for making more by way of destructive practices. Also, we need money to pay for shit as a country. Who do you think really benefits from the infrastructure of the country? Do you think that our car oriented sprawl city infrastructure is in place to serve the people? No, it is most beneficial to the Wal-Mart that relies on it to bring goods and people to them and sell them cheap shit. If our infrastructure was there to serve the people it would be much different. Companies benefit from infrastructure and dictate its form and should help pay for it!
What if we use Homeland Security dollars for infrastructure? After all, infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc) are there first and foremost for security reasons anyways (Walmart and the rest of us just get to use it.).
I'm enjoying this discussion and not going to respond to every single thing even though I'd kinda like to. I have to get some work done!
But I'll say again: the biggest cash flow impediment to my small business is health insurance. To insure my family privately through my small business would cost us about half of what I charge in fees in a typical month. And I know many families who would pursue entrepreneurship much more vigorously if they didn't HAVE to have at least one family member employed solely for the health insurance coverage. The current health care plan is a mess, but it's possibly a first step towards overall reform of a severely broken system. How can the supposed "pro-business" arm of the right claim that removing insurance from its current ties to employment would be BAD for business owners?
Bank of America, job creater???lighten regulation so they can create jobs??? really? they plan to layoff 30,000 people.
Large corporations are making more than ever, so where are those jobs?
Can it be that they are intentionally not creating jobs so Obama can fail and they can get a puppet in the White House to deregulate things so that they can make even more money???? Not too hard to believe, the TP is doing it, and afterall thats who they work for.
Is this a democracy or an oligarchy cloaked in the illusion of democracy?
Donna can I have a job?
I will take some work off your hands so you have time to respond to all of the posts!
One the particular issues that I have with tax reform is not the actual taxes... but deductions.
We all know that everyone who owns a business sometimes cheats a little with writing off a lunch that wasn't really a business expense or buying a printer that you really wanted but your business had no real use for.
Buying property, for a business, makes little economic sense as most businesses as lease holders pay for the general operation and maintenance of a building. However, a business buying its own real estate makes perfect sense since it allows a business to accumulate wealth and commercial real estate value grows at a pretty constant rate.
But, for simplicity's sake, let's say a business has $200,000 in gross revenue. And for simplicity's sake, let's say the tax rate is 39%. It buys a $250,000 unit ($200,000 for just the building) or It can also rent the same unit for $2,000 a month.
If it buys, it can write off only $5,128 plus interest $~13,000 in the first year, but we'll say $5,000 as average over the entire life of the loan, giving us a total of about $10,128. If the business rents, that write off is $24,000 for the year.
So, if it buys, we have a net revenue of $189,872 with $74,050.08 in taxes. We have an net income, ignoring all other costs, of $115,821.92. On the renting side, we have a net revenue of $176,000 with $68,640 in taxes. We have an net income, ignoring all other costs, of $107,360.
But... property owners have to pay property taxes and insurance. I'd say a general Business Owner's Policy would run around $2,000 for a small office. With a millage rate of around 0.04, property taxes should run about $10,000. So, if it buys, we have a more accurate net revenue of $177,872 with $69,370.08 in taxes giving us a net income of $108,501.92.
A savings of a whopping $1,141.92! That $1141.92 is nowhere near going to cover the cost of a bookkeeper and a lot of your time or the cost of one really good accountant to manage the unbelievable headache that comes with owning versus renting. I'd prefer it if there was some way to make commercial property ownership more lucrative.
Other countries offer plenty of credits and arrangements to companies with lowering their tax burdens through smart and compliant options those companies choose to participate in or not. Instead of changing the tax structure, I'd like to see more incentives to companies who spend a lot particularly on well-placed, well-built and and well-planned real estate.
Donna: "the biggest cash flow impediment to my small business is health insurance"
Time for 'Story Time with Rusty'? You betcha!
Looks like I will be pulling in more money this year than last one. But not by much. In 2010 all my income was US based. 2011 most my income is from Canada (eh?). For tax purposes I'm a small business (multiple clients, range of services, etc...)
Here's the kicker. My estimated total tax burden this year is less than what I would have had to pay last year in health coverage alone.
This opens up all kinds of opportunities for me. I haven't applied for a salaried position since spring time. Don't need to. I'm looking to expand my business instead.
Eventually when I am making big money, I'll pay my share of taxes, and concept of... who am I kidding. I'll never make big money.
But health care issue seriously hurts smallest of small businesses. Very anti-American IMO.
"Mommy, is that man homeless or a small business owner?" "That's Rusty honey. Haulin' ass. Gettin' paid."
My biggest expenses as a small business:
Rent (Commercial lease)
Payroll
Taxes and Insurance
After those things are paid for, I get a little bit too.
won and done: For as much as the Rs like to say that the private sector are the job creators in this country, the fact of the matter is the public sector makes up a very large percentage of American employment.
that's the problem - greece, here we come!
FRaC, you seem to forget that the public sector consists of teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, public transportation workers as well as politicians, bureaucrats and the cadre of other public officials and managers that I couldn't say what they do. I am all for cutting waste where possible and creating a more efficient public sector, but the above public workers do not make us Greece; they make us the functioning civil society that has existed in this country for the last 235 years.
won and done: '... the public sector consists of teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, public transportation workers as well as politicians, bureaucrats and the cadre of other public officials and managers that I couldn't say what they do.'
that's the problem! - government jobs have been expanding, dare i say progressing, for many years now. at the current rate of public sector employment, spending, and debt we are destined for a greek tragedy.
i doesn't have to be this way - we can learn from mistakes made by other countries and change our current path. join me; come to the dark side.
oh and who the hell needs a librarian now anyway?
that's the problem! - government jobs have been expanding, dare i say progressing, for many years now.
the vast majority of that expansion is directly related to the war on terror.
You missed my next sentence:
I am all for cutting waste where possible and creating a more efficient public sector.
The problem with the R's position is you cannot make blanket cuts to government spending for ideological reasons without effecting the necessary parts of the public sector. We need teachers, police officers, fire departments, bus service and yes, even librarians and a sprinkling of bureaucrats. The more you cut, cut, cut to reduce spending, the more these functioning parts of the public sector are effected. Furthermore you do not improve the unemployment picture with these cuts; you make it worse, dragging down the overall health of the economy. We all agree that we need a long term deficit reduction plan, but not at the expense of jobs or the overall health of the economy as the Republicans have proposed.
What toaster said. Locally, my building permit submittals are now reviewed and approved by an employee of Homeland Security. WTF? On the other hand, the teachers at my school deserve every damn penny of salary and benefits they get plus 2-3 times more for the job they do every day.
there is no there, are you paying for you own health insurance? By "taxes and insurance", do you mean general liability insurance, or health? Also, you have a commercial lease on a space where you provide services to a lot of clientele on site, yes? Most architecture firms don't do that, so I would guess rent on commercial space would be lower for a similarly-sized small architecture firm. I could be wrong.
We're veering all over on the topic here.
in 1986, the federal government had 1.07 million civilian employees, in 2009, the government had 1.28 million employees.
the US population in 1986 was around 226 million or so, the US population around 2009 was 307 million. so... federal government employment rose roughly 19% while total US population rose 35%. so - technically it's true that the government has grown, it actually grew at a slower rate than the total population - which would tell us that either it's more efficient or probably understaffed. if you crunch the numbers you'll see something similar at the state and local levels.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.