(Wallace Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,639 messages
Updated 5/27/2024 10:09:04 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Wallace Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Bernie Marcus will not apologize for being rich
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 2:24:35 PM
|
Saw Bernie as a co-host on CNBC ... he is a billionaire and was asked if he feels guilty for his wealth. His response was wonderful ...
Not an exact quote ... but he said, when he and Arthur Blank started Home Depot he had very little money. They both worked the floor, did their own books, ran the register, etc. Their their hard work they created over 300,000 jobs for americans, not counting the additional jobs created by suppliers, contractor building their stores, etc.
Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (70% are small businesses) makes no sense since those are who create jobs. Taxing them more, reduces investment and creates an unwillingness to take risk to expand (that creates jobs).
Obama and the socialists just do not get it and do not understand that free market capitalism with low taxes is what creates economic expansion and job growth.
As has already been pointed out ... republicans took over congress after Clinton's second year and held it until 2006 .... the period of time we had the greatest exconomic expansion, under a democrat and republican president. Since 2006 ... when the dems took over it has been a downward spiral.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bernie Marcus will not apologize for being rich
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 2:47:22 PM
|
Links:
http://getoutofthestands.com/index.php/2010/09/bernie-marcus-apologizes-for-creating-300000-jobs-defends-small-business-puts-clowns-in-white-house-on-notice/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler/2010/09/17/bernie_marcus_does_star_turn_on_cnbc
The one above is videos of things Bernie said on CNBC
URL: Bernie, I am sorry for creating 300,000 jobs
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey WaterBoy
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 3:14:50 PM
|
Please define small business ... seriously what do you call small business?
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ben Stein said much the same thing
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 4:26:22 PM
|
in his short editorial piece on Sunday Morning, this morning. He said he feels he is being punished for being successful.
I don't think that the more affluent should necessarily be penalized; however, I don't think that everyone making over $250K is creating jobs -- lots of Wall Streeters who earn that and much more, who aren't creating jobs for anyone but themselves. I assume that most small businesses OWNERS are filing their income as "personal" and make a seperate filing for their BUSINESS; ie, what they pay themselves is personal invome, but the profits and expenses for the business are a seperate filing.. I'm all for giving small "business" tax breaks, but I'm not interested in giving personal income for business owners a pass, just because they own a business.
I wish they would put more effort into going after the tax cheats, and those who just don't bother filing, before they impose an additional burden on those with high incomes that pay.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey WaterBoy
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 5:28:27 PM
|
anything below the Russell 2000
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ben Stein said much the same thing
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 5:42:35 PM
|
Hound I agree on the tax cheats and no, every family making over $250K is not creating jobs for others .... but households making over $250K do account for 40% of all consumer spending. So taxing them more does cut in to spending that does create jobs for others.
The argument that cutting taxes more for those that make over $250K has less stimulus impact as cutting taxes below $250K. That may be the case, but we are talking about raising taxes on a segment that generates 40% of consumer spending and spending will go down and have a further negative impact on the economy.
You lived in DC, you would have to agree that $200K in DC is less than Alexander City. The same with NY, LA and other major cities. That is where the higher income is, not in rual america. So it plays well in the press, but those making that income adjust their lifestyle to their income, taxing them more is just as great of burden, and why should they be penalized because they were successful.
The big dollars on wallstreet ... much of that is gone and many are now on unemployment (maybe they should be) ... but the ultra wealthy is a very small minority and they too are mostly self made and why should they be penalized further when they already pay the majority of personal income taxes?
It is now 49% that pay no taxes ... so how much are we going to keep taking from those that have reached a level of success ... that is what many take risks to achieve. Those that make it create jobs, but many fall on their face. The greater the risk, the greater the reward should be. It seem that is what Obama wants to penalize those that achieved that success for their risk.
The answer is a consumption tax and stop penalizing income ... wealthy people consume more, so they would pay more.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
those that dont pay
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 5:46:58 PM
|
On tax cheats and those that do not pay ... I did see that federal workers that are behind on their taxes owe more than $3 billion. To me that should be a condition of continued employment ... pay up or lose your job.
I also saw that a congressman put forth a bill that any member of congress that is behind on their taxes will have their pay garnished until it is paid. The press said it has little chance of passing ... but it should pass ... this is who writes the laws and tax code we all must live by.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
so jellyfish
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 5:49:27 PM
|
I answered immediately ... but I see you still have not answered. Was this your way of trying to not answer a direct question. You are so spineless ... you should be ashamed to call yourself a man. What an embarrassment you are.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Further help for you Jellyfish
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 5:55:13 PM
|
In the United States the Small Business Administration establishes small business size standards on an industry-by-industry basis, but generally specifies a small business as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most "nonmanufacturing" businesses.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I've been doing my part
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 9:08:15 PM
|
for the economy lately.
Yes, the majority of wealth is concentrated in the cities, not in rural America. And let's face it, $200K isn't what it used to be. It buys a comfortable lifestyle, but not necessarily a lavish one.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That is interesting
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 9:15:00 PM
|
Because it is part of a condition of employment for government employees and is a reason for termination. I guess that is only applicable if they catch up with the employee. They do with-hold federal taxes automatically from the pay, so they can't be not paying anything... but maybe not all they owe. One would think that they would automatically run the federal workforce against the tax payers (it's not like they don't have the SSN) and cull those out for action.
Can't account for members of Congress. They are a breed unto themselves.
|
| Name: |
Barneget
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Further help for you Jellyfish
|
|
Date:
|
9/19/2010 10:49:51 PM
|
Thats a HOOT !!! Your post informed me that according to the SBA definitions, my family owned and operated biz, assisted by 20 +/- folks, is not small. Gimme a second to shift my vision from providing the basics (food, roof, health care) and some limited luxuries for mine (cable, cell phones, personal vehicles, assistance with college tuitions, a lake house). This is REALLY EXCITING !!! Now, as owner of a BIG BUSINESS..... what should I change? What could I change? Let me list what I can change while realistically anticipating a 20% increase in health care premiums, a 10% increase in Fed Tax rates, a 1% tax on ALL banking transactions (biz and personal), $13,000 annual additional accounting expense for the new 1099 requirements, unemployment payroll taxes climbing by 2% to cover the state fund deficit, $25000 X 14 pumps to comply with new ADA regs published Thursday (this after spending $98k in May to make sure my pinpads were compliant with the new credit rules), pending Cap and Tax legislation, House hearings on how to steal my personal tax deferred funds accumulated for retirement, and a 3.8% RE transaction tax.
List --
Dining out less frequently, if at all
Letting some PM's slip on the houses
Take a higher deductible on BC/BS
Do away with HD and premium channels
Limit minutes on cell plans
Run personal fleet substantially longer (our average is now 5 years and 92,000 miles vs 3 years, 45,000 in 2007)
Youngest headed to a state college, hopefully on scholarship
Sold the boat and jet skis, trying to rent the house
Straight up, I can't, nor can my competition, directly absorb much of those expenses. The uncertainty comes in trying to determine how much my/our customers can or will absorb.
However they define me, small or big, with every passing moment, I despise these collectivist BazTards, and their moon howling lemming parasite followers, even more.
GTFO -- coming 2012
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Another Supporting Opinion
|
|
Date:
|
9/20/2010 7:19:40 AM
|
Glen Esnard, a Newport Beach executive for real estate services firm Grubb & Ellis, went to bat in the Wall Street Journal last week for high-income-earners who believe it’s unfair that their tax rates should rise on Jan. 1, as President Obama proposes.
Esnard also suggested that the answer might be for the better-heeled to find a new country.
In a letter to the newspaper, Esnard wrote that although he includes himself in the population earning more than $250,000 a year:
My family isn't wealthy. I have no funded retirement plan save Social Security, if it is there when I need it. I have no guarantee of permanent health care. I am paying off school loans for our three children. A meaningful number of my friends have lost their jobs, and all who are still employed, including my family, have taken significant pay reductions. . . . This is a classless recession, at least in my experience. It is hitting everyone.
Yet those of us who make $250,000 or more are vilified and held accountable for solving our government's penchant for spending more than it takes in so that politicians can buy votes. We already pay more in taxes than 98% of the population, particularly the nearly 50% of eligible voters who pay no federal income tax. The president wants us to pay more, and he frames it in a way that casts us as not yet carrying our fair share of the burden.
He then goes on to say that the $250K+ class might just vote with their feet:
Apparently our president thinks that living in America is so wonderful that we will never leave, despite being directly attacked and held responsible for the political class's inability to constrain its desire to buy votes with our money. He should think again.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Louisiana Lakes
»
Wallace Lake
Login
|
Home
