Liberal Business owners - a true story of what I get to deal with right now

[Jarhead]

Let see, I make $251,000, so I qualify as one of these rich people. Now I'm going to go on one vacation this year (we cut back) at $100,000 by Jillian's accounting. Then we ate dinner every day (what were we thinking) 365 x 1,000 = $365,000. So I'm $214,000 in the hole before taxes.

you don't have a 50 person business and aren't making the kind of money we're talking about....

and i can assure you my numbers aren't wrong... although the $100,000 vacation includes meals.

this conversation was not about the gee, 2 to 4% in increased taxes for the top 1% we're talking about, it's the effect of the ACA on companies with more than 50 employees so you're not following the topic anyway.

I can assure you that your numbers are crap. You brought something into the discussion that was wrong and off topic not me.

when you include some of the more prominant wall street firms and the fortune 500 lists...there are people thaty make that kind of money...no doubt.

But the bulk of businesses are not like that. Most have the owners walking away with a middle class lifestyle....

For me.....my lifestyle made it all worthwhile and I wouldnt change a thing...

But even with 325 employees...I was never deemed rich....and most certainly didnt try to live rich.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

or more likely know that a family vacation for the type of person you're talking about costs $100,000

and they'll spend $1,000 on a family dinner

and $3,000 on a business dinner.

not to mention the fact that the extra expenses don't cost $50,000 in actual dollars because of concomitant tax deductions.

so i'd say that YOUR observations are the ones made by someone who never had bottom line accountability... at least not on any scale large enough to run a 50-person concern

You're all over the place and starting to spew.

Are you saying that every business owner is a rich person as you described above? It's from some Marxists comic book version of America.

I studiously avoid any discussion of myself or my business but I leave rather large hints and have mentioned, more than once, that I was the first analyst hired by someone who is now on Forbes 400 list and helped him grow his Capital Markets subsidiary. I did real estate tax shelters on an abacus and we raised capital from every brokerage house at the time on Wall Street.

I know bottom line -- and I know who doesn't

that isn't spewing honey. it's reality.

do you think i'm wrong about the numbers I stated?

if you're a numbers guy, what do you think the actual, after-tax deduction, cost of $1,000 per year.

and do you see any drop in CEO compensation packages or golden parachutes?

you're not being honest if you say you do.

There's a big disconnect between talking about Golden parachutes and 50 person small business, it's apples and chainsaws

I think your picture of business owners living large as you described is almost totally wrong, it sounds more like some executive on an expense account. All the selfmade people I know never lose site of what things cost

The actual after tax costs of $1,000 is a function of tax rate

 

[Jarhead]

you don't have a 50 person business and aren't making the kind of money we're talking about....

and i can assure you my numbers aren't wrong... although the $100,000 vacation includes meals.

this conversation was not about the gee, 2 to 4% in increased taxes we're talking about for the top 1% so you're not following the topic anyway.

At our peak we had over 300 temporary employees that were working 40 hours a week on our behalf in the offices of our clients. We had an operations staff of 25 permanent employees over two locations...one in Manhattan and one on Long Island. We needed both offices to cater to the interviewing of temps as our assignments were in both areas. We had E and O insurance, Workers Comp and a payroll service.

My partner and I did well.....but to spend anything above 10K on a family vacation for 4 was irresponsible...and usually we spent less. I never took more than 10 days at a tiome...and rarely more than once a year.

An evening out with my wife was a nice dinner of maybe 150 bucks....once a week at most. My kids went to camp and I paid for their colleges. We drove nice cars....usually infinitis although we just got the 335i (wow....love it)....

So, in essence...I employed 325 people, made about 300-350K and lived a nice upper middle class lifestyle. During my waning years, my income dropped to less than 200K....over the 3 decades...making an adjustment for inflation and CoL increases, I averaged in the 300K a year range...

Your perception of business owners is wrong. Most do not have the million dollar salaries and golden parachutes. Most are not "the elite"...and most CARE about their employees.

Until you see that, you will continue to blast hard working individuals who had the gutsa to "take the plunge" and start a business.....and ironically, it seems you blast them once they acheive success....

To be frank...I dont get it.

The "employees" you employed were generating profits for your clients, not for you.

You'd think you'd be honest and tell everyone: "i was a recruiter." But no, let's flat out call them "your employees" and compare them to companies who straight up employ 300 people, themselves.

Save your third party bullshit for comparisons.

lol...showing how niaive you are once again. You are an embarrassment to yourself.

I had 3 divisions...a recruiting division, a temporary placement division, and a business planning division that concentrated on HR and worked co-op with business planners of the industry of the client...

My 300 temporary employees WERE MY EMPLOYEES. By law, they had to be. I paid them weekly; they were on my payroll, and I tax matched every one of them....when they were unemployede,m I was the first employer of record...and as the years passed, some got other jobs and lost them and I was listed as the second employer of record...and responsible for their costs (depending on my current ratio).....

So whereas you think you kow everything, once again I show you otherwise...

Read up on temporary agencies and how they operate. The "temps" are THEIR employees.

 

[g5000]

Wow. This perception of business owners taking $100,000 vacations, and having golden parachutes is really wild!

Some people have some really strange perceptions of the top one percent.

To qualify for the "top 1 percent" you only have to make $343,000 a year. This is a guy or gal who lives in your town. He or she lives in a bigger house than you do, but is not jetting off to the Caymans to fondle their gold and splurging a hundred grand on hookers and blow.

The top one percenter is a local employer, working their ass off 60, 70, 80 hours a week, sweating over their books, negotiating with their suppliers, groaning at their accountantss, reserving the Grange for the company Christmas party, and wondering how long they can hold things together every single day.


The person who is stealing from you is not the guy in the bigger house. Making the guy in the bigger house pay more taxes is not going to stop the thievery. Our politicians and the corruptors of our markets are playing all of us against each other.

Wake up, people.

.

 

[Jarhead]

Frank worked for a Fortune 400 Company but doesn't understand what Capital Gains Taxes means.

exactly why should someone who works for a fortune 400 company knopw what cap gains taxes are? One thing has nothing to do with another.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank worked for a Fortune 400 Company but doesn't understand what Capital Gains Taxes means.

Stick with stuff you know.

I never said I worked for a Fortune 400 Company

Not sure where you "Capital gains tax" comment comes from

 

[Mr. H.]

The OP is his last during the past 10 hours. Hmmm...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

First, I will quote the relevant bits from Section 1513 of the PPACA. Then, I will explain what it means.


You need this:

SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its fulltime
employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored
plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled
for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction
is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment
equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.

And this:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The number of individuals employed
by an applicable large employer as full-time
employees during any month shall be reduced by 30
solely for purposes of calculating—
‘‘(I) the assessable payment under subsection
(a), or
‘‘(II) the overall limitation under subsection
(b)(2).
‘‘(ii) AGGREGATION.—In the case of persons treated
as 1 employer under subparagraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction
under subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated
among such persons ratably on the basis of the
number of full-time employees employed by each such
person.

What this means is that a company that does not provide health insurance is susceptible to penalties only if the employees get federal subsidies to buy their health insurance. But in addition to that, to avoid the very kind of disincentive Blue Phantom made up in the OP, whereby an employer with 49 employees decides not to hire more people because it would push him over the 50 employee floor, the second part that I quoted means that for purposes of the penalties, the first 30 employees are not counted toward the penalties.

.

Facts?

Worthless cuz rw's won't read them.

they won't read them because what they heard in their email chain letters or read on The Blaze or heard from lushbo is anti-Obama and that's what really matters.

 

[Jarhead]

The "employees" you employed were generating profits for your clients, not for you.

You'd think you'd be honest and tell everyone: "i was a recruiter." But no, let's flat out call them "your employees" and compare them to companies who straight up employ 300 people, themselves.

Save your third party bullshit for comparisons.

lol...showing how niaive you are once again. You are an embarrassment to yourself.

I had 3 divisions...a recruiting division, a temporary placement division, and a business planning division that concentrated on HR and worked co-op with business planners of the industry of the client...

My 300 temporary employees WERE MY EMPLOYEES. By law, they had to be. I paid them weekly; they were on my payroll, and I tax matched every one of them....when they were unemployede,m I was the first employer of record...and as the years passed, some got other jobs and lost them and I was listed as the second employer of record...and responsible for their costs (depending on my current ratio).....

So whereas you think you kow everything, once again I show you otherwise...

Read up on temporary agencies and how they operate. The "temps" are THEIR employees.

I know whose employees they are, technically, but in effect you're a middle man. They don't do anything for YOU, but fill a position for your CLIENT. It's a ******* racket.

To compare it to companies who do direct hiring, and what their books look like, is ludicrous. Absolutely disingenuous and a lie.

I thought you were niaive...I was wrong...You aree just a poorly educated moron.

I had to direct hire tham, insure them (E and O, workers comp, liability). I had to tax match for them...and they would be my unemployment burden if they discontinued working.

The way they look on my books is identical to the way they would look on ANYONES books.

The only difference is we did not have to account for the cost of office space and technology when evaluating margin per employee....

As for it being a racket...another naive statement by you. It opens the door to companies increasing headcount to see if such is necessary without incurring all the costs....cover for maternity and or illness....and allow those looking for a permanent job to continue working and have an income.

I dont think you are naive...I think you are jealous....your last two posts reek of it.

 

[Ravi]

Frank worked for a Fortune 400 Company but doesn't understand what Capital Gains Taxes means.

that's low, he was the doorman and couldn't be expected to know anything about moolah.

 

[Jarhead]

I know whose employees they are, technically, but in effect you're a middle man. They don't do anything for YOU, but fill a position for your CLIENT. It's a ******* racket.

To compare it to companies who do direct hiring, and what their books look like, is ludicrous. Absolutely disingenuous and a lie.

I thought you were niaive...I was wrong...You aree just a poorly educated moron.



The way they look on my books is identical to the way they would look on ANYONES books.

The only difference is we did not have to account for the cost of office space and technology when evaluating margin per employee....

As for it being a racket...another naive statement by you. It opens the door to companies increasing headcount to see if such is necessary without incurring all the costs....cover for maternity and or illness....and allow those looking for a permanent job to continue working and have an income.

I dont think you are naive...I think you are jealous....your last two posts reek of it.

I had to direct hire tham, insure them (E and O, workers comp, liability). I had to tax match for them...and they would be my unemployment burden if they discontinued working. - based on dollars paid to you, by the company they actually went out and did physical work for and generated revenue for. you're a glorified ******* finder's fee, give me a god damned break.

What sort of douche compares their employees as a recruiter to a Business' direct-hire employees, and DOESNT KNOW WHY IT'S NOT AN APT COMPARISON?

Really?



Reallyyyyy?

Gosh...your jealousy stinks to high heaven.

An employed acccountant goes to the client and does the work for the client and generates the income for the partners of the accounting firm. Is that accountant not an employee of the accounting firm?

Listen up......

if one is responsible for running the payroll of 325 people; tax matching for 325 people; unemployment burden of 325 people; insurance for 325 people; subnmit payroll reports to NYSIF for 325 people; send out 325 w-4's in January....then one has 325employees...

You are coming across as a jealous moron with the education of a 6th grader. I suggest you lay low.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So I have to share this because it really pisses me off. So I manage a business for two owners who are absolutely fabulous people...I mean wonderful people and I love them to death...but they are flaming liberals and can't see their hand two inches past their nose. So prior to the election they tasked me with setting up a plan fo expansion into a second location. Now I know the books and so the other day we meet and ask my plan and my response was: "I don't think we can expand now"

"Why not?" they asked confused.

"Well," I said. "Right now our company has 47 employees. Expanding to a second locaton will put us over the 50 employee limit on Obamacare and we will have to pay health benefits for every one of our employees or pay the fine to avoid it. After looking at the books, that will bankrupt us." I explained.

"But our business is ready to take the next step." they said to me.

"Yes it is," I responded "but we can't afford to anymore. The good old days of expanding according to sales and demand are over." I explained. "That's not the way it works anymore."

"Well why not?" they asked sincerely.

"Well because of the Affordable Health Care Act" I said. I then explained all the implications and do you know what their response was? These flaming liberals who voted for Obama and pounded the "health care is a human right" angle? Know what they said to me? They said "Well we have to find a loophole to get out of this. We can't afford that. it will end our business."

I was tempted at that point to reach across the table and strangle them both screaming "this is what you voted for mother fuckers!!!!" but I kept my cool. I said slowly "the business landscape has changed. Now here are our options.....#1 cut every employee to below 30 hours a week. If they go over 30 hours we fire them on the spot."

"Well how will they support their families on only 30 hours a week?" they asked.

"If they go over 30 hours after the expansion," I explained "then you will support their families directly from your own pocket because the business cannot sustain the expense incurred by Obamacare." I got incredulous at this point. "Jesus ******* Christ have you not been paying attention?" I was met with silence.

"Now the other option is to expand to the new location but to sub-contract labor to a different entity. Technically, you will have no new employees and be under the 50 cap. On the other hand you have to entrust your labor to a totally different business...and don't even think about creating a dummy corporation yourself to hire those workers under unless you want a nice battle with the IRS for fraud. It will have to be a completely unrelated business with totally unrelated ownership."

So after a while of them thinking they looked at me and asked.

"So what you are saying is that we can't expand our business unless we slash the hours of our employees who need every hour they can get, sub-contract out our labor an allow an independent business to control our labor, or just say **** it and not expand at all?"

i said "Yep"

"THAT'S TOTAL BULLSHIT" they screamed

"That's what you voted for" I said calmly risking my job.

I didn't get fired. The expansion will not take place. 45 jobs set and ready just got lost thanks to Obamacare.

Did you suggest they could just pay the penalty of $2000 per year per employee?

Or they could cut wages and salaries to make up the difference.