The Republican party is too far to the right.

[Pandora]

Congratulate Obama. The Republican party if it wants to win next time must dumpt the extreme tea party right wingers and move to the center.

Or get judges to help voter fraud in battle ground states

It is not extreme to not want to be over taxed to pay for those who refuse to work and it is not extreme to want your constitution respected.

 

[Openmind]

Or get judges to help voter fraud in battle ground states

It is not extreme to not want to be over taxed to pay for those who refuse to work and it is not extreme to want your constitution respected.

As we determined a few months ago, YOU would NEVER qualified to be over taxed!

You, on the contrary, would benefit from President Obama's concern about the middle class and the poor.
And, please, do not try to tell us that you make over $250,000 a year!

Don't you think that it might be time to revise your crazy ideas and the totally ridiculous beliefs you hold?

How about watching something else than Fox News for a few weeks. . .it might actually open your mind to some REALITY check!

 

[BigRob]

As we determined a few months ago, YOU would NEVER qualified to be over taxed!

You, on the contrary, would benefit from President Obama's concern about the middle class and the poor.
And, please, do not try to tell us that you make over $250,000 a year!

Don't you think that it might be time to revise your crazy ideas and the totally ridiculous beliefs you hold?

How about watching something else than Fox News for a few weeks. . .it might actually open your mind to some REALITY check!

It is not a ridiculous idea to believe that people should keep more of what they earn.

It is not a ridiculous idea to believe those making under $250,000 will feel the effects of tax policy change -- their bosses will make decisions about their jobs based on this tax policy.

It is not ridiculous to believe that tax policy should be based on real economic data, instead of "fairness."

It is not ridiculous to believe the numerous CBO studies that clearly show tax hikes on the rich get us nowhere close to a balanced budget.

 

[Openmind]

It is not a ridiculous idea to believe that people should keep more of what they earn.

It is not a ridiculous idea to believe those making under $250,000 will feel the effects of tax policy change -- their bosses will make decisions about their jobs based on this tax policy.

It is not ridiculous to believe that tax policy should be based on real economic data, instead of "fairness."

It is not ridiculous to believe the numerous CBO studies that clearly show tax hikes on the rich get us nowhere close to a balanced budget.

Their bosses, IF THEY ARE SMART, will make decisions about hiring and firing based on whether or not they have customers (either for their products, or for their services).

Bosses (at lest smart ones) do not hire or fire for political reasons, but for economic reasons. If they can make a penny out of hiring another employee, they will hire. If they lose money by hiring another employee, they won't hire. And, whether they make money making a product (or delivering a service) is based on whether or not the people who are potential buyers for that product or service have money or not, and if their product is in demand or not.

Maybe reading some economics books would help inform you of healthy, basic economic principles.

The fact that, a REAL business man will NEVER forgoe a 5% increase in income just because he/she can't get 7% is pretty basic. . and I don't understand how a smart guy like you can not see that. . .unless you already have so much money in your pocket that you would rather screw your own business by making decisions intended ONLY to screw other people based on partisan BS.

And, I'm not surprise that you may think that giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the economy. . .because the report from a non-partisan group was SQUASHED before it became public. But, just in case you are interested in REAL information, here it is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rvative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/

 

[BigRob]

Their bosses, IF THEY ARE SMART, will make decisions about hiring and firing based on whether or not they have customers (either for their products, or for their services).

Bosses (at lest smart ones) do not hire or fire for political reasons, but for economic reasons. If they can make a penny out of hiring another employee, they will hire. If they lose money by hiring another employee, they won't hire. And, whether they make money making a product (or delivering a service) is based on whether or not the people who are potential buyers for that product or service have money or not, and if their product is in demand or not.

Maybe reading some economics books would help inform you of healthy, basic economic principles.

The fact that, a REAL business man will NEVER forgoe a 5% increase in income just because he/she can't get 7% is pretty basic. . and I don't understand how a smart guy like you can not see that. . .unless you already have so much money in your pocket that you would rather screw your own business by making decisions intended ONLY to screw other people based on partisan BS.

And, I'm not surprise that you may think that giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the economy. . .because the report from a non-partisan group was SQUASHED before it became public. But, just in case you are interested in REAL information, here it is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rvative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/

I don't disagree with anything you have said -- in fact is all obvious. I own my own companies, and I certainly would not pass up a 5% increase because I couldn't get a 7% increase.

That said, hiring decisions come down to one thing for me -- A) can I afford it and still be profitable (or at least on a path to profitable shortly) and B) Does this employee add value

If someone is running an LLC as a pass through, and wants to expand, hiring an employee can be expensive. There are a lot of expenses, SS, Medicare, benefits (if provided), and its not a political decision to make a hiring decision based on tax policy -- its just business. If I could use the money I would now owe in extra taxes to instead hire another employee, I would much rather hire another employee -- but numbers are numbers, and tax policy IS a factor (for me at least) when making a hiring decision.

 

[Openmind]

I don't disagree with anything you have said -- in fact is all obvious. I own my own companies, and I certainly would not pass up a 5% increase because I couldn't get a 7% increase.

That said, hiring decisions come down to one thing for me -- A) can I afford it and still be profitable (or at least on a path to profitable shortly) and B) Does this employee add value

If someone is running an LLC as a pass through, and wants to expand, hiring an employee can be expensive. There are a lot of expenses, SS, Medicare, benefits (if provided), and its not a political decision to make a hiring decision based on tax policy -- its just business. If I could use the money I would now owe in extra taxes to instead hire another employee, I would much rather hire another employee -- but numbers are numbers, and tax policy IS a factor (for me at least) when making a hiring decision.

Obviously, you would need to see what that employee would cost you, and how much he would bring you! That's basic! But it is also basic that people you would hire would ALSO be your customers. and that the money you would invest in a new hire would be a good multiplier for the economy in your area, EVEN IF it doesn't add more than a couple of % to your bottom line.

And, since I believe you are a good, intelligent human being, there is also (as it was in the past) a HUMAN BENEFIT to helping a person to contribute to society, and to be able to support his/her family. How much is that worth for a REAL Christian? 1% maybe? Well, add that to your 3 or 4% benefit, and call it charity!

This is the way it works in "social democracies." And guess what. . .private businesses there are just as successful (if not more) than here!

 

[BigRob]

Obviously, you would need to see what that employee would cost you, and how much he would bring you! That's basic! But it is also basic that people you would hire would ALSO be your customers. and that the money you would invest in a new hire would be a good multiplier for the economy in your area, EVEN IF it doesn't add more than a couple of % to your bottom line.

And, since I believe you are a good, intelligent human being, there is also (as it was in the past) a HUMAN BENEFIT to helping a person to contribute to society, and to be able to support his/her family. How much is that worth for a REAL Christian? 1% maybe? Well, add that to your 3 or 4% benefit, and call it charity!

This is the way it works in "social democracies." And guess what. . .private businesses there are just as successful (if not more) than here!

Everyone's business is going to be different -- they are on different margins, are set up differently etc. I don't see any problem making a hire if they add value (ie 1-2% in net profitability), but the scenario will arise for some people where that hire could net them 1% and that hire would up their costs 4-5% -- in which case it makes no sense to make that hire.

It will differ for every business, but for me, tax policy is a factor in this stuff, and its not a political decision.

 

[Openmind]

Everyone's business is going to be different -- they are on different margins, are set up differently etc. I don't see any problem making a hire if they add value (ie 1-2% in net profitability), but the scenario will arise for some people where that hire could net them 1% and that hire would up their costs 4-5% -- in which case it makes no sense to make that hire.

It will differ for every business, but for me, tax policy is a factor in this stuff, and its not a political decision.

If there is such a huge gap. . .there is something wrong with the business!
Since ALL FICA taxes are barely 7.65 %, I very much doubt that any increase in employer taxes for a new employee would go up by more than 1%. . .so if an employee could add 3% of his "carrying cost" as benefit to the employer, it seems that it would be a big win/win for both new employee and employer.

Personally, I think that the FICA tax should remain based on the first $110,000 of earning. . .then have a"donut hole" where no one pay more FICA taxes between that $110,000 and $500,000. But then, another FICA tax on BIG INCOME should be applied again on earnings (and bonuses) over $500,000, with no top limit.

That would take care of the social security deficit issue, without affecting the majority of the workers.
In fact, the FICA taxes as they are now are making the lower income earners pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the high earners. . .

I remember that, even 15 years ago, my husband was done contributing to FICA by mid February! While his secretary had to contribute to FICA until November, and some pay FICA Taxes 12 months out of the year!
Hardly fair!

 

[steveox]

Like i said,,If i won Powerball IM GOING TO CANADA! And Stay rich instead of the I.R.S taking it all back from me..This will become my new city

 

[BigRob]

If there is such a huge gap. . .there is something wrong with the business!
Since ALL FICA taxes are barely 7.65 %, I very much doubt that any increase in employer taxes for a new employee would go up by more than 1%. . .so if an employee could add 3% of his "carrying cost" as benefit to the employer, it seems that it would be a big win/win for both new employee and employer.

Personally, I think that the FICA tax should remain based on the first $110,000 of earning. . .then have a"donut hole" where no one pay more FICA taxes between that $110,000 and $500,000. But then, another FICA tax on BIG INCOME should be applied again on earnings (and bonuses) over $500,000, with no top limit.

That would take care of the social security deficit issue, without affecting the majority of the workers.
In fact, the FICA taxes as they are now are making the lower income earners pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the high earners. . .

I remember that, even 15 years ago, my husband was done contributing to FICA by mid February! While his secretary had to contribute to FICA until November, and some pay FICA Taxes 12 months out of the year!
Hardly fair!

I personally find it great when I don't have to contribute to FICA anymore.

That aside, is there any study that you know of that has been done on such a proposition and the revenues generated etc? I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Like i said,,If i won Powerball IM GOING TO CANADA! And Stay rich instead of the I.R.S taking it all back from me..This will become my new city

Good city--Toronto.
I think I may go to Nanaimo, up in B.C., live in the woods outside of the town.
With lots of dogs--maybe a cat or two.

 

[Cruella]

Don't you think that it might be time to revise your crazy ideas and the totally ridiculous beliefs you hold?

How about watching something else than Fox News for a few weeks. . .it might actually open your mind to some REALITY check!

Last she posted, she was watching CNN. And what makes you say are her ideas the crazy ones?

 

[steveox]

Good city--Toronto.
I think I may go to Nanaimo, up in B.C., live in the woods outside of the town.
With lots of dogs--maybe a cat or two.

Reason why i selected toronto cause it has sports. I can now root for the Jays,Raptors,Leafs and Bills. Why Bills? Cause Ralph Wilson said hes gonna move them to Toronto in the future. In fact the Bills might move there next year because of Obama.

 

[Openmind]

I personally find it great when I don't have to contribute to FICA anymore.

That aside, is there any study that you know of that has been done on such a proposition and the revenues generated etc? I'd be interested in reading it.

Yes, I remember it well, when the first pay check clear of FICA withholding arrived, it was always a happy surprise, although when we were at the point when we only paid FICA for about 6 weeks a year. . .I forgot about FICA and it was always a chock to receive the first pay check of the year with the withdrawal for FICA !

And, no. . .I do not have any information about such a proposition. It's just my "brain child," and it probably would NEVER even be considered. . .although I don't think it's a bad idea.

But I guess we could have a vague idea just by looking at the total amount of earned income over $500,000 per year, and take 7.65 % of that. Obviously it wouldn't be a very exact figure, but one thing for sure, it would be a LOT more than what FICA collects now! I would also suggest that the FICA tax collected AFTER the donut hole ONLY be collected from the wage earner, not from the employer.

 

[Openmind]

Last she posted, she was watching CNN. And what makes you say are her ideas the crazy ones?

If you have to ask. . .you probably have the same crazy ideas.

I'm not interested in engaging in this with you.