Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only reason small business don't do well doing a recession is because people not working do not make purchases. Put people back to work will get people off entitlements and pay down the deficit and revive small businesses.
Apparently. But mind my asking why?
Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.
My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.
So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.
Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.
My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.
So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.
And they would be lying.
10% tithings was a form of taxes and is still used by most chruches. Isn't the Jubilee Year a form of entitlement program? Similar to bankruptcy?
Psst... Tithes are voluntary. I pay nothing to any church - but no IRS agents are hunting me...
Depends on what church you belong to if the tithes are voluntary or not.
Mormons are REQUIRED to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and it's figured out how much that should be in a yearly meeting with the Mormon bishop.
Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.
My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.
So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.
And they would be lying.
What is your basis for saying that? Have you heard of the Tax Foundation? They, too, point out that raising the top two rates would have a far greater impact on small business income than Democrats are claiming:
IRS Data Shows That Businesses Will Bear Brunt of Obama's Tax Hike | Tax Foundation
Are they lying too?
Depends on what church you belong to if the tithes are voluntary or not.
Mormons are REQUIRED to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and it's figured out how much that should be in a yearly meeting with the Mormon bishop.
And if they don't? What will the Bishop do?
Not a damned thing. Catholics are the same way, they demand but have no power to enforce. The ONLY ones taking money at gun point are the government.
Mormons are required to attend a Tithing Settlement with the Bishop each year. A member is questioned in a one-on-one interview with the Bishop to ensure the member is paying a full 10%. Those members who are not paying a full 10% loose their temple recommends and are prevented from entering the Temple.
Mormons who loose their temple recommends are in serious jeopardy of loosing their Celestial blessings. A Mormon who does not pay tithing cannot enter the temple. If a member cannot get into the temple, the member cannot learn the secret handshake, secret password, secret "new name" and special sealings. Without these, the member will be unable to pass Joseph Smith and the angels who guard the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom.
Mormons are commanded that tithing must come first before anything else. Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the United States. Mormons often are told "I cannot pay my bills until I've paid my tithing." Mormons will even pay their tithing rather than give the money to a relative who is on the verge of eviction. Mormon published magazines (Ensign, New Era) constantly stress that tithing must always be paid.
Recently, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch passed legislation that allowed members to pay a full tithe even while they were in bankruptcy court. (See S. 4044).
Mormons are told: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).
Mormons who have not paid tithing will be denied a temple recommend and will be considered "unworthy". However; Mormons who pay "back-tithing" (some as much as $5000 or more) are instantly found to be worthy and can receive their temple recommends back once the money has been paid. The Mormon Church uses this as an extortion method when it comes to temple marriages. Parents or family members who have not paid tithing are required to pay back tithing - sometimes in the thousands of dollars - which must be paid before a temple recommend can be issued in order to see their own children married.
Well, again, if you really care about small businesses, which create over 60% of new jobs, you might want to consider the fact that small business associations are raising the alarm about raising the top tax brackets; they are pointing out that raising the top two rates would impact about 48% of small business income.
My previous reply included a link to a study done by the National Federal of Independent Businesses that points out, among other things, that 14%, not 3%, of small businesses would be affected by raising the top two rates. We must keep in mind that quite a few "small businesses" are not really businesses as such but as forms of "pass through" income for individuals. You can't count those when you calculate the impact that tax hikes would have on small businesses and their employees.
So if you really care about small businesses, then perhaps you should listen to what they're saying on this issue.
And they would be lying.
What is your basis for saying that? Have you heard of the Tax Foundation? They, too, point out that raising the top two rates would have a far greater impact on small business income than Democrats are claiming:
IRS Data Shows That Businesses Will Bear Brunt of Obama's Tax Hike | Tax Foundation
Are they lying too?
The Temple, not the church - and who gives a fuck?
Don't pay the IRS and they will come to throw you in prison - if you resist, they'll kill you.
Get a grip comrade, seriously.
The point is, you said that you don't tithe, and there are no consequences in any churches for not tithing at least 10 percent.
Admit it...............you're wrong.
Investing more that you have, while still leaving enough to meet your other obligations.
Smart businesspeople do not do that.
And I'm sure you can identify where I indicated "investing more than you have"? The point is that people assume that someone who has $250,000 in taxable income has that available to spend on themselves and therefore can buy whatever personal items they want, so why not raise taxes on them. The reality is often that they have no more disposable income than their employees because they are investing that back into the business for growth. Adding to their tax burden doesn't mean instead of $250,000 to spend they only have $230,000; it could mean that they will not be able to add that additional piece of equipment that would help make their business more efficient and profitable (hence generating even more taxable income).
Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.
But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)
Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.
And I'm sure you can identify where I indicated "investing more than you have"? The point is that people assume that someone who has $250,000 in taxable income has that available to spend on themselves and therefore can buy whatever personal items they want, so why not raise taxes on them. The reality is often that they have no more disposable income than their employees because they are investing that back into the business for growth. Adding to their tax burden doesn't mean instead of $250,000 to spend they only have $230,000; it could mean that they will not be able to add that additional piece of equipment that would help make their business more efficient and profitable (hence generating even more taxable income).
Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.
But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)
Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.
The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?
Then why ask for clarification?
Meanwhile, no need to worry about someone acting foolishly and not seizing the market. Others will, rest assured. So try not to lose sleep that opportunity will be missed. It rarely is.
But what's the mother of opportunity? Field of dreams nonsense, as many Republicans believe? (make a widget, and it spawns widget buyers from out of thin air?)
Opportunity comes from: a) people, and; b) the money they make. Period. Until we grow wages, things will tough for those who sell stuff, and thus they'll buy less things for their businesses.
The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?
Gotcha. Good info.
Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.
So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.
The clarification was necessary because your comment made no sense (and your "clarification" simply confirmed that). And the only one acting foolishly here is you; the point is that additional tax burdens can preclude "seizing the opportunity". I agree that opportunity comes from people and the money they make. Small business owners are people that make money. How will taking more from them to fund the government "grow wages"?
Gotcha. Good info.
Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.
So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.
So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.
No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.
Gotcha. Good info.
Taking money from a tiny percentage of small business owners and others who make north of $250 K does not raise wages. Raising the minimum wage raises wages, with absolute certainty; and the money that higher-paid workers spend, goes to businesses. No shit. MW workers do not bury it under their mattresses, nor sock it away in Cayman Trusts, as a rule. They spend it, in businesses, who will tell you in a heartbeat that wages are not what's killing them; low sales are.
So create more opportunity with higher wages, and let the cream of our crop snap it up with terrific products and services.
So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.
No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.
Of course. Raise wages was the question, so I answered. Try to stay with me here, and for that matter, yourself.
Meanwhile, you're clueless. Productivity = working more for less, or more hours for same. Doesn't raise wages, in fact it's an indication of the opposite, in case it's pickling your brain why wages are down despite productivity being up.
Just raise the fucking minimum wage, to about $12, and good shit happens. You can sell a six-pack of beer again, to lots of folks. As Reagan '84 ads would say, it's morning again, in America. God bless it, praise babyjesus, it not longer sucks to live and work in America.
What a concept.
Tell that to my friend who is struggling with her business because of the tax hikes
So now we've moved to minimum wage? OK, let's give all the minimum wage workers another, what, $1 an hour? According to the Department of Labor stats, there were 1.7 million minimum wage workers in 2011; an extra dollar an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is about $3.5 billion; that represents .023% of our $15.5 trillion economy. There's a major stimulus for you. Make it $2; then you get all the way to .046%. That's 46 thousandths of one percent; that should turn the tide.
No, what is required to increase wages is productivity, and that requires investment in physical plant. Taking $80 billion dollars a year out of the pockets of those most likely to invest may not be the right answer.
Of course. Raise wages was the question, so I answered. Try to stay with me here, and for that matter, yourself.
Meanwhile, you're clueless. Productivity = working more for less, or more hours for same. Doesn't raise wages, in fact it's an indication of the opposite, in case it's pickling your brain why wages are down despite productivity being up.
Just raise the fucking minimum wage, to about $12, and good shit happens. You can sell a six-pack of beer again, to lots of folks. As Reagan '84 ads would say, it's morning again, in America. God bless it, praise babyjesus, it not longer sucks to live and work in America.
What a concept.
So productivity is a bad thing, is that your reasoned, internationally known, C-level opinion? Talk about clueless. I'm done here.
I think we need to take a peek at who is a small business. What.does the average McDonalds franchise owner clear on a store in a year? The guy who runs the independent hot rod shop up the road? Does he make 250k a year?
