Buffett and his taxes

[flacaltenn]

You do realize that the 2nd time tax on stock investments is utter bullshit, right? especially where it comes to 401k, which are PRE tax investments.

Post #57, Daffy.


About half of working families have 401k's, but that doesn't mean that half of all investments are via same.
Further, there are limits on how much can be contributed to these vehicles, and time restraints and mandates on withdrawl.

In short, with reference to your "You do realize that the 2nd time tax on stock investments is utter bullshit, right?", it seems it applies more to your post.

nope. most stock investments made beyond the 401k investments are corporate. THEY sit on them for years, where the EARNINGS of the rest of us are taxed immediately, letting their piles of money earn piles of more money without being taxed while the rest of us pick up the tab, and while the actual value of the money they eventually owe is much lower in the future than it would have been in the present, increasing the cost to the rest of us.

Sounds like you have your greedy Socialist eye on those Baby Boomers retirement funds don'tcha? Because THOSE aren't taxed immediately. (Roth vs Traditional, ect). The reason for that is to ENCOURAGE savings for retirement. THAT increases the immediate "cost" to all of us in exchange for encouraging that savings. You're not alone. The scavengers of the redistribution movement already have dibs on that pile of cash. They'd LOVE to raid individual pensions and retirement funds for IMMEDIATE gratification -- just like the Soc Sec Surplus was stolen and squandered for all those years. Or how the GOVT (both Fed and State) are MISMANAGING employee retiree accounts and UNDERFUNDING them for IMMEDIATE gratification. That's not the society that WE (your opposition) wants.

Same deal with Cap gains. Contrary to your view that investment shouldn't be treated specially -- We've made the decision that folks SHOULDN'T be sitting on piles of cash. They should be encouraged to start new businesses, to loan that money to others, and to VOTE with their cash on what new product and ideas should succeed.

That is FAR preferable to relying on the GOVT to REMOVE all risk to life by paying for your retirement and picking the market winners and losers in a Centralized manner. Your prescription would hobble any attempt to rebuild and reshape our economy for 21st Century World competition.

We'd have to just cannibalize what's left and continue throwing the expensive furniture on the fire.

 

[Jarhead]

He reports his income as capital gains. If he wants to pay more on it all he has to do is report it as income and not take the many deductions he takes. The fact that he chooses to do this, and then complains about how little he pays, proves he is posturing.

I heard him defend against this very charge.. He's NEVER proposed an increase in the Income brackets or EVEN in the Cap Gains tax.. His thinking is more like a "Millionaires Alternative Tax" that just kicks in regardless of source of income. Leave the bracket crap for the "little people"..

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

I understand the point you are manking....

But I dont understand why it would matter to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

please do me a favor and explain what you mean by this (in red)....exactly how are the wealthiest riding the backs of the ordinary people?

What the hell does a corporate executive do? He plans how working people will earn money for him. Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if the ordinary working people all over the world stopped working and went on a hunger strike? Rich people and their antics make my rectum crave buttermilk.

If I'm not mistaken working people earn money for themselves when they have a job. You know money to pay bills and most have the HC payed for by their employer.

The workers on a hunger strike??

WOW you really need to try Fidel or Hugo.

I suspect that anyone with this "my shit don't stink" attitude toward their employment isn't much of a worker to begin with, and probably wouldn't be missed.

 

[flacaltenn]

He reports his income as capital gains. If he wants to pay more on it all he has to do is report it as income and not take the many deductions he takes. The fact that he chooses to do this, and then complains about how little he pays, proves he is posturing.

I heard him defend against this very charge.. He's NEVER proposed an increase in the Income brackets or EVEN in the Cap Gains tax.. His thinking is more like a "Millionaires Alternative Tax" that just kicks in regardless of source of income. Leave the bracket crap for the "little people"..

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

Basic misunderstanding of investment. I expect that from a leftist. "The rich" can't AFFORD to "sit on investments and draw on it as needed".. There are very few investments that don't need to be "managed". Thus if you were in MBSecurities and had a lot of Fanny/Freddy -- you don't today. You wouldn't want to KEEP an investment in NetScape or CompuServe -- would you? So portfolios get managed, STUFF GETS SOLD REGULARLY and taxes are paid.

You must have gotten all these misconceptions from those books you recommended in another thread. Because "the RICH" can't avoid both taking risky investments and paying taxes on the "turnover" in their portfolios. Whatever model you're using is WAAAAY unrealistic and simplistic..

Even those greedy corporate CEOs don't sit on overweighted stock options for the rest of their life. They MANAGE RISK by excersizing those options and reinvesting periodically in other things. Not even 30 yr Treasury investments get "sat on". They are constantly traded.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You weren't here when the coal miners and railroad workers first unionized. That was the beginning of the American middle class. The Republican party has resented and attempted to undo it ever since.

Because of the goddam mess George W. Bush and his "Tax Cuts For The Wealthy" policies plus two wars made we are back to the scenario where working people will once again put their lives on the line if it becomes necessary. 'Course I wouldn't want to tangle with one of those mean CEO's...they hire others to do their fighting. You know...like the Mafia bosses.

Now, now, Campy...neither were you.

1. Early on Eugene Victor Debs was quite properly seen not as a radical but as a decent Democratic politician and labor leader. In 1884, he wrote an editorial for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman, stating that the union “is not to antagonize capital. Strikes do that; hence we oppose strikes as the remedy for the ills of which labor complains.” Nick Salvatore, “Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist,” p.49.

2. The Pullman strike of 1894 changed Debs. The issues of the day included the 8-hour day, and in its cause, the members of the railway firemen were grumbling about the no-strike policy. Pushed by the new militancy, Debs declared that “the men of brawn and brain who produce” should be given “a just proportion of the proceeds.”

a. George Pullman, of sleeping car fame, had constructed a workers’ community in which he owned the land, the workers’ houses, and ran the churches; the sewage was pumped into Pullman’s farm to be used as fertilizer.

b. When the Depression of 1893 hit, wages fell on average by 33 to 50 percent. While Pullman deduced from the workers’ wages the costs of rent and water, library fees, and grocery bills, he refused to lower rents commensurate with the drop in wages.

c. Pullman banned the eight-hour day, saloons, and trade unions.


The truth is that the middle class has neither stagnated nor fallen back. The standard of living of same has continued to increase.

Need I do the math for you?

You are so full of shit that I smell you:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Is anyone else unsurprised that this pile of reeking feces has no source cited for it? I think what Methuselah here is "smelling" is the crap emanating from his keyboard.

 

[Claudette]

How much have you been "reimbursed" on lottery losses? There's not much difference. You take the risk and suffer the losses. But if you earn money you should pay a fair tax on it just like it was a paycheck. Nobody's going to stop investing or buying lottery tickets just because they have to pay a little more percentage in taxes.

I see what your saying but my question is what the Govt had to do with you RISKING your money on investments??

Why in hell should they get any part of the proceeds on your RISK?? You, with your money, not taxpayer money, took the risk and either came out ahead or didn't.

I know its income but it wasn't earned on any job. Why should the Govt get a slice of your good judgment and luck??

Don't lose sight of WHY one takes the risk. And if you have to pay taxes that means you're doing well with your investments. And if you pay a LOT in taxes that means you're doing GREAT with your investments.

But guess what? Either way you're making money. How can that be a bad thing?

All in all I'd rather not share my good judgment and luck with the Govt.

Call me greedy but I'd like to keep it all. LOL

Thanks for the good convo ther Goose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the hell does a corporate executive do? He plans how working people will earn money for him. Have you ever stopped to think what would happen if the ordinary working people all over the world stopped working and went on a hunger strike? Rich people and their antics make my rectum crave buttermilk.

You think you can do it?? You think it's easy to run a company??... Start one and prove it

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

Yes, and that's all our taxes go to pay for, right? Trillions of dollars a year just in federal taxes, let alone state and local taxes, JUST for roads, police, and fire.

I'm sick to death of hearing "roads, police, and fire!" parroted every time someone suggests that taxes are too high. You call me when our tax burden is reduced to JUST the components of your mantra.

 

[Barb]

I heard him defend against this very charge.. He's NEVER proposed an increase in the Income brackets or EVEN in the Cap Gains tax.. His thinking is more like a "Millionaires Alternative Tax" that just kicks in regardless of source of income. Leave the bracket crap for the "little people"..

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

I understand the point you are manking....

But I dont understand why it would matter to you.

Because we all, today, in the present, pay MORE money in taxes, in our government borrowing money from foreign investors, by lower hiring, lower wages, and lower benefits to SUPPORT that. Deferred payments are not invested in the companies that pay through deferral, they are held in separate accounts. Not invested in growing the company, or research and development, like all other employee stock investments are, many which have been used to "tech" the contributors out of their jobs before they are eligible to access their retirement, thus cheating them of the investment interest [if they get anything back it is flatly what was paid in] and funding the means to their unemployment, while the deferred payments are untouchable, nontaxable until reaped, and gain interest.

 

[Care4all]

I heard him defend against this very charge.. He's NEVER proposed an increase in the Income brackets or EVEN in the Cap Gains tax.. His thinking is more like a "Millionaires Alternative Tax" that just kicks in regardless of source of income. Leave the bracket crap for the "little people"..

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

Basic misunderstanding of investment. I expect that from a leftist. "The rich" can't AFFORD to "sit on investments and draw on it as needed".. There are very few investments that don't need to be "managed". Thus if you were in MBSecurities and had a lot of Fanny/Freddy -- you don't today. You wouldn't want to KEEP an investment in NetScape or CompuServe -- would you? So portfolios get managed, STUFF GETS SOLD REGULARLY and taxes are paid.

You must have gotten all these misconceptions from those books you recommended in another thread. Because "the RICH" can't avoid both taking risky investments and paying taxes on the "turnover" in their portfolios. Whatever model you're using is WAAAAY unrealistic and simplistic..

Even those greedy corporate CEOs don't sit on overweighted stock options for the rest of their life. They MANAGE RISK by excersizing those options and reinvesting periodically in other things. Not even 30 yr Treasury investments get "sat on". They are constantly traded.

so its just like working, then charge them the same taxes on the earnings as the worker has to pay in marginal rates...? why not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you think that a business will be as successful without roads, police or fire protection that ordinary taxpayers provide for that company?

You think that possibly everyone benefits from infrastructure???

You think that maybe we could upkeep things like public roads (most of which are state, not federal by the way) if so much were not spent on bullshit entitlements and handout to a large % of people who DO NOT PAY IN TO THE SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS DO??? The thing is that a large # of people in the population ARE NOT NORMAL TAXPAYERS...

Hmmmm....entitlements and handouts.

Entitlements are called as such because people ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits that they've paid their whole lives into.

Handouts (and I'm guessing you mean welfare) eats up less than 1/2 of 1% of tax dollars.

So what's your point again?

And what do you consider a "large number" of "not normal" taxpayers? What's "not normal"?

No, entitlements are called that because a bunch of politicians who are desperate for the deadbeat vote want to make you THINK you're "entitled" to it. I do so love suckers who can't even see when they're being bullshitted and used.

 

[Jarhead]

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

I understand the point you are manking....

But I dont understand why it would matter to you.

Because we all, today, in the present, pay MORE money in taxes, in our government borrowing money from foreign investors, by lower hiring, lower wages, and lower benefits to SUPPORT that. Deferred payments are not invested in the companies that pay through deferral, they are held in separate accounts. Not invested in growing the company, or research and development, like all other employee stock investments are, many which have been used to "tech" the contributors out of their jobs before they are eligible to access their retirement, thus cheating them of the investment interest [if they get anything back it is flatly what was paid in] and funding the means to their unemployment, while the deferred payments are untouchable, nontaxable until reaped, and gain interest.

I respect your answer.
I dont necessarily see it that way as you seem to group "all" of the wealthier as acting in such a way.
You see, I am more wrapped up in the small and medium sized companies that do NOT act that way unless economic conditions warrant "playing it safe"....
So the question is...do we make changes to make sure the "greedier" do not get to act out on their greed at the cost of the less greedy ALSO being affected negatively?

But I really appreciate your well thought out and somewhat accurate answer.

 

[Barb]

I understand the point you are manking....

But I dont understand why it would matter to you.

Because we all, today, in the present, pay MORE money in taxes, in our government borrowing money from foreign investors, by lower hiring, lower wages, and lower benefits to SUPPORT that. Deferred payments are not invested in the companies that pay through deferral, they are held in separate accounts. Not invested in growing the company, or research and development, like all other employee stock investments are, many which have been used to "tech" the contributors out of their jobs before they are eligible to access their retirement, thus cheating them of the investment interest [if they get anything back it is flatly what was paid in] and funding the means to their unemployment, while the deferred payments are untouchable, nontaxable until reaped, and gain interest.

I respect your answer.
I dont necessarily see it that way as you seem to group "all" of the wealthier as acting in such a way.
You see, I am more wrapped up in the small and medium sized companies that do NOT act that way unless economic conditions warrant "playing it safe"....
So the question is...do we make changes to make sure the "greedier" do not get to act out on their greed at the cost of the less greedy ALSO being affected negatively?

But I really appreciate your well thought out and somewhat accurate answer.

Thank you

I appreciate your grasp of variables.
My Dad was small business. I do see a difference between you and multinationals.
I would have like to see his smallish business see a but more relief for the faith he expressed back then. It didn't happen. I've been a little pissed off ever since. Not that I expected better, but because he did, and he wasn't a stupid man. He was a good man.

 

[DaGoose]

You think that possibly everyone benefits from infrastructure???

You think that maybe we could upkeep things like public roads (most of which are state, not federal by the way) if so much were not spent on bullshit entitlements and handout to a large % of people who DO NOT PAY IN TO THE SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS DO??? The thing is that a large # of people in the population ARE NOT NORMAL TAXPAYERS...

Hmmmm....entitlements and handouts.

Entitlements are called as such because people ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits that they've paid their whole lives into.

Handouts (and I'm guessing you mean welfare) eats up less than 1/2 of 1% of tax dollars.

So what's your point again?

And what do you consider a "large number" of "not normal" taxpayers? What's "not normal"?

No, entitlements are called that because a bunch of politicians who are desperate for the deadbeat vote want to make you THINK you're "entitled" to it. I do so love suckers who can't even see when they're being bullshitted and used.

Hmmmm.....why would you think we're NOT entitled to things we've already paid for?

 

[Jarhead]

Because we all, today, in the present, pay MORE money in taxes, in our government borrowing money from foreign investors, by lower hiring, lower wages, and lower benefits to SUPPORT that. Deferred payments are not invested in the companies that pay through deferral, they are held in separate accounts. Not invested in growing the company, or research and development, like all other employee stock investments are, many which have been used to "tech" the contributors out of their jobs before they are eligible to access their retirement, thus cheating them of the investment interest [if they get anything back it is flatly what was paid in] and funding the means to their unemployment, while the deferred payments are untouchable, nontaxable until reaped, and gain interest.

I respect your answer.
I dont necessarily see it that way as you seem to group "all" of the wealthier as acting in such a way.
You see, I am more wrapped up in the small and medium sized companies that do NOT act that way unless economic conditions warrant "playing it safe"....
So the question is...do we make changes to make sure the "greedier" do not get to act out on their greed at the cost of the less greedy ALSO being affected negatively?

But I really appreciate your well thought out and somewhat accurate answer.

Thank you

I appreciate your grasp of variables.
My Dad was small business. I do see a difference between you and multinationals.
I would have like to see his smallish business see a but more relief for the faith he expressed back then. It didn't happen. I've been a little pissed off ever since. Not that I expected better, but because he did, and he wasn't a stupid man. He was a good man.

My boys watched me work 12 hours a day to get a recruiting business going (my first company)....in NYC....I got it to a nice size and turning a decent profit...and then the planes hit.

Then my sons watched me dissapear for the next 3 days as I was called in for rescue and recovery at the pit.

A month later my sons listened to me as I explained to my wife how our Mayor, in his attempt to score brownie points, offered tax credits to retailers who would hire people through the city for seasonal work from November-January.
Now, why is that relevant?

My clients at the time were retailers that hired a multitude of temps from me....They would payt me 16 an hour per temp and I would pay them 12 an hour...and after payroll expenses, I was making a nice little profit....but the work was intense as I had to start preparing and training them in AUgust.
SO what happened?
The city told them they would get tax credits if they hired seasonal people at 8 an hour through the city.
So the retailers took the list I had furnsihed them, gave it to the city....and I was SOL.

and the irony? The temps got 4 less an hour, the mayor got kudos, the retailers made out like bandits and I had to pay my employees that prepared and trained with absolutely no revenue in return.

So my sons have seen how my hard work can be easily erased so a politician can look like a hero.

 

[Jarhead]

Hmmmm....entitlements and handouts.

Entitlements are called as such because people ARE "entitled" to receive the benefits that they've paid their whole lives into.

Handouts (and I'm guessing you mean welfare) eats up less than 1/2 of 1% of tax dollars.

So what's your point again?

And what do you consider a "large number" of "not normal" taxpayers? What's "not normal"?

No, entitlements are called that because a bunch of politicians who are desperate for the deadbeat vote want to make you THINK you're "entitled" to it. I do so love suckers who can't even see when they're being bullshitted and used.

Hmmmm.....why would you think we're NOT entitled to things we've already paid for?

which box in your w-2 says "welfare"...cant seem to find it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Most millionaires' taxes wouldn't be on "income," as you and I experience it. That is exactly where our tax code favors the rich. WE pay income taxes as we earn it. THEY pay wealth and investment taxes as they access it. They can afford to defer it, where the majority of the rest of us have to accept (and pay taxes on) it AS it comes in. We have to pay those taxes at current rates on today's dollar value. They pay later, when the dollar value of those rates go down, and AFTER amassing huge profits off of the interest that money earned, without ever paying taxes on it. They have more money to earn interest because they don't have to pay taxes on money they don't need for basic living expenses.

Basic misunderstanding of investment. I expect that from a leftist. "The rich" can't AFFORD to "sit on investments and draw on it as needed".. There are very few investments that don't need to be "managed". Thus if you were in MBSecurities and had a lot of Fanny/Freddy -- you don't today. You wouldn't want to KEEP an investment in NetScape or CompuServe -- would you? So portfolios get managed, STUFF GETS SOLD REGULARLY and taxes are paid.

You must have gotten all these misconceptions from those books you recommended in another thread. Because "the RICH" can't avoid both taking risky investments and paying taxes on the "turnover" in their portfolios. Whatever model you're using is WAAAAY unrealistic and simplistic..

Even those greedy corporate CEOs don't sit on overweighted stock options for the rest of their life. They MANAGE RISK by excersizing those options and reinvesting periodically in other things. Not even 30 yr Treasury investments get "sat on". They are constantly traded.

so its just like working, then charge them the same taxes on the earnings as the worker has to pay in marginal rates...? why not?

The big diff is it's NOT "just like working". Taking a job is not a RISKY venture. It's a relatively safe act. Just like the banks are sitting on SAFE RETURNS guaranteed by the Govt rather than writing "risky" loans to you and me and businesses..

The fact is -- the left wants to remove ALL risk from life (and business) -- but that's not reality. To START a company or FUND a company takes tremendous conviction, skill and RISK TOLERANCE. Our leftist buds want to equate that with picking up the paycheck. It's not.

 

[Claudette]

No, entitlements are called that because a bunch of politicians who are desperate for the deadbeat vote want to make you THINK you're "entitled" to it. I do so love suckers who can't even see when they're being bullshitted and used.

Hmmmm.....why would you think we're NOT entitled to things we've already paid for?

which box in your w-2 says "welfare"...cant seem to find it.

Because it isn't there,

However we have a whole lot of folks in this county who think it is.

 

[Jarhead]

Hmmmm.....why would you think we're NOT entitled to things we've already paid for?

which box in your w-2 says "welfare"...cant seem to find it.

Because it isn't there,

However we have a whole lot of folks in this county who think it is.

lol...I distribute hundreds of w-2's each January...I know it is not there.

 

[Barb]

I respect your answer.
I dont necessarily see it that way as you seem to group "all" of the wealthier as acting in such a way.
You see, I am more wrapped up in the small and medium sized companies that do NOT act that way unless economic conditions warrant "playing it safe"....
So the question is...do we make changes to make sure the "greedier" do not get to act out on their greed at the cost of the less greedy ALSO being affected negatively?

But I really appreciate your well thought out and somewhat accurate answer.

Thank you

I appreciate your grasp of variables.
My Dad was small business. I do see a difference between you and multinationals.
I would have like to see his smallish business see a but more relief for the faith he expressed back then. It didn't happen. I've been a little pissed off ever since. Not that I expected better, but because he did, and he wasn't a stupid man. He was a good man.

My boys watched me work 12 hours a day to get a recruiting business going (my first company)....in NYC....I got it to a nice size and turning a decent profit...and then the planes hit.

Then my sons watched me dissapear for the next 3 days as I was called in for rescue and recovery at the pit.

A month later my sons listened to me as I explained to my wife how our Mayor, in his attempt to score brownie points, offered tax credits to retailers who would hire people through the city for seasonal work from November-January.
Now, why is that relevant?

My clients at the time were retailers that hired a multitude of temps from me....They would payt me 16 an hour per temp and I would pay them 12 an hour...and after payroll expenses, I was making a nice little profit....but the work was intense as I had to start preparing and training them in AUgust.
SO what happened?
The city told them they would get tax credits if they hired seasonal people at 8 an hour through the city.
So the retailers took the list I had furnsihed them, gave it to the city....and I was SOL.

and the irony? The temps got 4 less an hour, the mayor got kudos, the retailers made out like bandits and I had to pay my employees that prepared and trained with absolutely no revenue in return.

So my sons have seen how my hard work can be easily erased so a politician can look like a hero.

Your retailers were local. I'm all for supporting local business. The politicians pander to global corporate interests, taking away from localities, weakening common interests. Weakening common and mutually beneficial bonds so that all that is left in play is what they see as their market share. When we allow the profit to be removed from those who have to live with the results of the actions leading to the profit, there is no direct accountability, and NO benefit to the community where the profit is made. Someone (s) FAR away are strip mining YOUR community.

 

[Claudette]

which box in your w-2 says "welfare"...cant seem to find it.

Because it isn't there,

However we have a whole lot of folks in this county who think it is.

lol...I distribute hundreds of w-2's each January...I know it is not there.

LOL I know you know its not there.

So do I.