$249,999.00 Is the Goal

[Ravi]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

2. Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not.

3. Some small business owners think they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

4. Almost everything Oreo posts, except for some actual IRS information, has proven to be false.

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

 

[editec]

do you also reject the things those taxes are supposed to pay for?
if not, who do you suppose should pay for those things?
surely you would not ask non-smnokers to pay for smokers healthcare

But that is EXCTLY what is happening.

FACT: Smokers do NOT cost as much as NON SMOKERS in health care costs.

They die, and do NOT continue demanding those hip replacements and other things that a GERIATRIC populion demands.

If you doubt me, divide the avage MEDICARE cost of nonsmokers to the average MEDICARE dollaars spend on NON SMOKERS.

The high cost of smokers to the tax payer is one of those MYTHS which nobody ever questions.

the numbers are there for you all to see.

Smokers have been and will continue to be driving DOWN the cost of HC tfor the nonsmokers due to our higher mortality rates.

Dead people do NOT cost a whole helluva lot in HC costs.

DYING by inches OLDER people (those would be the non-smokers statistically speaking) definitely do.

ROFLMAO
yeah, cause they dont cause any expense in the process of dying


you are smarter than this

Hey Dive...everybody dies.

But those who stay around seven years on average longer than smokers continue using HC associated with the diseases of aging while they're outliving those now departed smokers,

And therein lays the difference in average HC costs between smokers and non smokers.

I think even you are smart enough to get this simple fact, if you but try, DC

 

[editec]

As to complaint that many of us have with sin taxes?

Consider that almost every government which taxed their people taxed people for luxuries

Why?

Well taxing luxuries actually makes a kind of economic sense, doesn't it?

When a government taxes its people for essantials, it's taking away from its people, what they need to continue living to keep paying taxes.


But when they tax luxuries, the masters are siphoning off that EXTRA money that the wroking people don't actually need to survive.


I'm not an especially big fan of these taxes, but from a social scientific sense they do make a kind of sense.

 

[jillian]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

2. Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not.

3. Some small business owners think they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

4. Almost everything Oreo posts, except for some actual IRS information, has proven to be false.

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

all true. and well said.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

That all depends on how one plans to reduce income that can be claimed and income that has certain advantages in the tax code.

2. Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not.

And small business owners pay taxes that salaried employees don't pay. For example SUTA and FUTA taxes, property taxes on equipment and furniture ( I have to pay a tax ono every desk, chair, microwave, radio, computer, even the lawn mower and snow shovels. Workman's Comp while not a tax is a mandated insurance so it might as well be a tax.

3. Some small business owners think they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

Who?

4. Almost everything Oreo posts, except for some actual IRS information, has proven to be false.

No comment

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

That does not mean no one can.

 

[Care4all]

But that is EXCTLY what is happening.

FACT: Smokers do NOT cost as much as NON SMOKERS in health care costs.

They die, and do NOT continue demanding those hip replacements and other things that a GERIATRIC populion demands.

If you doubt me, divide the avage MEDICARE cost of nonsmokers to the average MEDICARE dollaars spend on NON SMOKERS.

The high cost of smokers to the tax payer is one of those MYTHS which nobody ever questions.

the numbers are there for you all to see.

Smokers have been and will continue to be driving DOWN the cost of HC tfor the nonsmokers due to our higher mortality rates.

Dead people do NOT cost a whole helluva lot in HC costs.

DYING by inches OLDER people (those would be the non-smokers statistically speaking) definitely do.

ROFLMAO
yeah, cause they dont cause any expense in the process of dying


you are smarter than this

Hey Dive...everybody dies.

But those who stay around seven years on average longer than smokers continue using HC associated with the diseases of aging while they're outliving those now departed smokers,

And therein lays the difference in average HC costs between smokers and non smokers.

I think even you are smart enough to get this simple fact, if you but try, DC

people with Diabitis have very high healthcare costs as just one example and altzheimers, and broken hips and heart disease, and various cancers and kidney problems etc...let alone a disability....

one of the reasons the Health Insurance companies began refusing the health care coverage of seniors and our government had to come in with Medicare to cover them...

insurance companies lobbied congress to do this....

so we pay the healthcare of all citizens in this country ONCE IT BECOMES THE MOST EXPENSIVE, once most people will be needing it and the Insurance companies get a GOLD MINE with charging us thru the roof while their profits SORE thru the roof....

OLDER people have alot of healthcare costs....

my mother in law, on pharmacuiticals alone's bill was around $70,000 A YEAR towards the end of her life....and that was just the 10 different medications they had her on, let alone the kidney dialysis, and other ailements she had, like breaking her back at 77 years old, and septicemia...blood poisoning.....all of this paid by Medicare, she lived till 87....

Smoker dies at 68 i think on average, regular person on average, around 75 and growing in to 80 soon in my opinion...

 

[Ravi]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

That all depends on how one plans to reduce income that can be claimed and income that has certain advantages in the tax code.

2. Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not.

And small business owners pay taxes that salaried employees don't pay. For example SUTA and FUTA taxes, property taxes on equipment and furniture ( I have to pay a tax ono every desk, chair, microwave, radio, computer, even the lawn mower and snow shovels. Workman's Comp while not a tax is a mandated insurance so it might as well be a tax.


Who?

4. Almost everything Oreo posts, except for some actual IRS information, has proven to be false.

No comment

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

That does not mean no one can.

We're discussing federal taxes...suta and property taxes don't fall into that category. As for FUTA, you could also make the claim that is a tax the employee is paying and it is pretty low and actually an insurance plan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

That all depends on how one plans to reduce income that can be claimed and income that has certain advantages in the tax code.
And small business owners pay taxes that salaried employees don't pay. For example SUTA and FUTA taxes, property taxes on equipment and furniture ( I have to pay a tax ono every desk, chair, microwave, radio, computer, even the lawn mower and snow shovels. Workman's Comp while not a tax is a mandated insurance so it might as well be a tax.


Who?

No comment

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

That does not mean no one can.

We're discussing federal taxes...suta and property taxes don't fall into that category. As for FUTA, you could also make the claim that is a tax the employee is paying and it is pretty low and actually an insurance plan.

A tax is a tax, a fee is a fee. Don't pretend that businesses have less of either than a salaried employee.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not pretending. Business owners have tax breaks that salaried employees don't have. And so do upper income earners.

The pretense here is that somehow business owners and the rich are getting screwed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[jillian]

A tax is a tax, a fee is a fee. Don't pretend that businesses have less of either than a salaried employee.

businesses absolutely have more leeway than W-2 employees. Anyone who says otherwise has never been in a position to compare or is being disingenuous.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A tax is a tax, a fee is a fee. Don't pretend that businesses have less of either than a salaried employee.

businesses absolutely have more leeway than W-2 employees. Anyone who says otherwise has never been in a position to compare or is being disingenuous.

And businesses have more mandated expenses than a w2 employee. And most people do not itemize their taxes as they could so if they are not taking advantage of the tools at their disposal, whose fault is that?

 

[editec]

I'm not pretending. Business owners have tax breaks that salaried employees don't have. And so do upper income earners.

The pretense here is that somehow business owners and the rich are getting screwed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

For example...many small business owners can write off the cost of their vheicles as an expense.

Hence, they write off their drive to work while their employees typically cannot because they do not itemize (because it's not worth it) their expenses.

I do NOT begrudge most small business owners these perqs.

As the owner of a number of small businesses, I enjoyed some of them myself.

 

[American Horse]

That all depends on how one plans to reduce income that can be claimed and income that has certain advantages in the tax code.
And small business owners pay taxes that salaried employees don't pay. For example SUTA and FUTA taxes, property taxes on equipment and furniture ( I have to pay a tax ono every desk, chair, microwave, radio, computer, even the lawn mower and snow shovels. Workman's Comp while not a tax is a mandated insurance so it might as well be a tax.

We're discussing federal taxes...suta and property taxes don't fall into that category. As for FUTA, you could also make the claim that is a tax the employee is paying and it is pretty low and actually an insurance plan.

They may not be federal but they are part of the raft of obligations and responsibilities which fall on the small business owner which they have to contend with that the ordinary hourly or salaried employee does not. They need to be taken into account when one says "Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not." not as federal taxes but overall taxes and burdens of responsibility not encumbering the salaried (or hourly) employee.

And FICA could and should be called an insurance plan: it was and still is regarded as such by its authors and the politicians of both political parties. For the salaried or hourly worker it is about 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) but for the self employed person it is (the SE tax) double that at about 15.3% because they pay the whole amount.

 

[WillowTree]

correction,, they are not getting screwed cause they know how to protect themselves.. are you watching the unemployment rates?? and wallstreet? that's true obamalama polls in play!

 

[Ravi]

I'm not pretending. Business owners have tax breaks that salaried employees don't have. And so do upper income earners.

The pretense here is that somehow business owners and the rich are getting screwed.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

For example...many small business owners can write off the cost of their vheicles as an expense.

Hence, they write off their drive to work while their employees typically cannot because they do not itemize (because it's not worth it) their expenses.

I do NOT begrudge most small business owners these perqs.

As the owner of a number of small businesses, I enjoyed some of them myself.

Very true...we bought a pick up for the business and it was paid for by the business in full. So is the gas we use in it...

 

[Care4all]

That all depends on how one plans to reduce income that can be claimed and income that has certain advantages in the tax code.
And small business owners pay taxes that salaried employees don't pay. For example SUTA and FUTA taxes, property taxes on equipment and furniture ( I have to pay a tax ono every desk, chair, microwave, radio, computer, even the lawn mower and snow shovels. Workman's Comp while not a tax is a mandated insurance so it might as well be a tax.

We're discussing federal taxes...suta and property taxes don't fall into that category. As for FUTA, you could also make the claim that is a tax the employee is paying and it is pretty low and actually an insurance plan.

They may not be federal but they are part of the raft of obligations and responsibilities which fall on the small business owner which they have to contend with that the ordinary hourly or salaried employee does not. They need to be taken into account when one says "Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not." not as federal taxes but overall taxes and burdens of responsibility not encumbering the salaried (or hourly) employee.

And FICA could and should be called an insurance plan: it was and still is regarded as such by its authors and the politicians of both political parties. For the salaried or hourly worker it is about 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) but for the self employed person it is (the SE tax) double that at about 15.3% because they pay the whole amount.

So these are taxes none the less, for them, the businesses, but SS and medicare taxes are not taxes paid by the working poor according to many on the right? What gives?

 

[American Horse]

And FICA could and should be called an insurance plan: it was and still is regarded as such by its authors and the politicians of both political parties. For the salaried or hourly worker it is about 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) but for the self employed person it is (the SE tax) double that at about 15.3% because they pay the whole amount.

So these are taxes none the less, for them, the businesses, but SS and medicare taxes are not taxes paid by the working poor according to many on the right? What gives?

Because they were designed to be a social security insurance account dedicated to the individual needs in case of disability, retirement, and illness. Once we depart from that, and almost all politicians of both parties are hesitant to do that, it becomes merely a welfare program and a transfer payment which at some later date can be changed radically. Everyone wants to preserve it pretty much as it is. Once it is seen as a tax it is seen as being a regressive tax, and that is where we have arrived today, pretty much.

Keep in mind that the (Earned Income Tax Credit) EITC, among other aims, helps to support those payments by giving a credit, which of course is a refund of payments already made into the account. The other aim of the EITC is that it works as a hook to get people to go ahead and declare their wages to the IRS rather than hiding them under the table and remain outside the system. That is seen as a plus by politicians because they are aware that people can remain outside the system too long such that they may not even be eligible at retirement age to draw SS, or get medicare....pushing them into medicaid and onto welfare. It's a well conceived tax incentive for the most part.

Edit: for politicians read "responsible politicans of both parties"

 

[Red Dawn]

We can conclude several things from this thread.

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

2. Small business owner's enjoy many tax breaks that salaried employees do not.

3. Some small business owners think they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

4. Almost everything Oreo posts, except for some actual IRS information, has proven to be false.

5. No one has ever come up with a coherent flat tax plan.

 

[Jon]

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

I disagree. She simply has different values from you. Several of us have explained the benefits of working less because of higher tax rates. It's called the substitution effect, and anyone who's taken even a basic economics class will know it.

 

[WillowTree]

1. The lawyer that is going to reduce her salary is either lying or stupid.

I disagree. She simply has different values from you. Several of us have explained the benefits of working less because of higher tax rates.

when using terms like lazy lying or stupid Ravi is a classic case of pot meets kettle.