It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putting a face on tax increases

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
for crying out loud

bill o'reillys contract HELLO? whats a contract?

that 10 million is spread out over a period of time he doesnt get paid 10 million a year

and bill lives where? in new york one of the highest cost of living areas of this country.

how many people does bill himself employ? think fox news covers all this writers and researchers? no

people need to think before they just rant just to hate on sucessful people.

ridiclous that people just regurjiitate that nonsense

pretty clear who the people are in this thread who can think for themselves and who doesnt




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

yup.
His fox contract is 10 million
crooksandliars.com...

Funny enough the amount doesn't matter
If he only has 100.000$ in the top tax bracket, an increase of 2.5% would raise his tax liability by 2500$
Meaning a dollar in the top tax bracket is worth 0.25 cent to Billo
edit on 22-9-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


fine he makes 10 million a year and losing half that in taxes between state and federal and the rest of that in costs of living in the most expensive place to live in the country

go look up how much they have to pay for a cheap 1 bedroom plus all the other taxes and fees there.
edit on 22-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


*sigh*
Yes.
And he says he will not take those 10 million anymore if he has to pay 100.000 dollar more in taxes, and instead start working for 300.000 to avoid the top tax bracket.

That's what I meant, if you keep it abstract and say taxing success disencourages success, yeah, that's kinda intuitive, and makes sense, but if you put Billos face on it, there comes the numbers.
And they make no sense!
Would you give up 6.3 millon dollars after tax because they used to be 6.4?
Guess what, neither will Billo!



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
While the man didn't word it well he's a small business owner as well as a Congressman.

He is a small business owner who has 33 Subway stores and and unknown amount of UPS stores and employs 500 people. His businesses generate 6.3 Million and after all expenses he nets about $600,000. He is a doctor who has invested in those businesses. Running a household might easily cost him $200,000, i'm pretty sure he was talking the basics of running the house not just food. Take a look at the percentage of your income you devote to housing, utilities, clothing, transportation and food, you will find it to be a similar percentage of your income.


Do the math, lets say he has just one UPS store, 34 businesses net him $600,000 or a whopping $17,647 of profit per store per year after all expenses and taxes. That's $1,471 a month or $368 profit a week. He's really making a killing isn't he?

I'm sure he has other income and investments, but many here on this site want to burn him at the stake for owning so many businesses. Since when did being successful in business become a negative trait in America?

He is a small business owner, like many in America. You don't make a lot at one venture, you have have to have multiple locations to thrive. To do that you need growth, access to capital and loans. The Government sure doesn't make it easy to help out small business owners. If you don't believe me, go in business for yourself and see, you will get a rude awakening.

Sure the tax increase won't kill him, however maybe it will cause him to go from 5 new stores and 5 remodels to 4 new stores and 2 remodels, that's what he is talking about. Of course some here will lambast him for owning 5 more stores. America sure has changed in the last few years.

The wealthy make for an easy "tax them" target. I just want to make others aware that many small business owners, who are successful even though these last few years have been hell for them as well. They make good money, but they risked alot doing so. Now people want to raise their taxes for being successful. To me, it just doesn't seem right to penalize people for doing well.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


fine he makes 10 million a year and losing half that in taxes between state and federal and the rest of that in costs of living in the most expensive place to live in the country

go look up how much they have to pay for a cheap 1 bedroom plus all the other taxes and fees there.
edit on 22-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Maybe he will need to do what most of us do when we can't afford to live somewhere, move somewhere cheaper...

No one is forcing Mr. O'Reily to live there.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Sure the tax increase won't kill him, however maybe it will cause him to go from 5 new stores and 5 remodels to 4 new stores and 2 remodels, that's what he is talking about. Of course some here will lambast him for owning 5 more stores. America sure has changed in the last few years.



Stop right there
Opening new stores and remodeling isn't in the 600.000
That's in the 6 million.
There is a tax on that, yes, and it's really stupid that it is there, and if you want to get rid of that, I would say yes, yes, yes!
Nobody else in the civilized world does that.
But he will not have to stop opening new locations or remodeling if his income tax is raised.
edit on 22-9-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


fine lets say bill moves

then who are you all going to hate on

wouldnt you want to think about job security?

no one to hate on puts people out of work

theres putting a face on tax increases



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 




But when the rich are taxed... "oh no, my ten million dollar salary is only seven million after taxes, how can I live on this?!" Woe, woe is they unfortunate enough to be taxed so harshly, for they truly have nothing to live for!


[color=dodgerblue]A person could live a very comfortable life on 7 million dollars, provided that they didn't go buy an insanely priced house in the Hollywood Hills or something. And they complain that they can't live on 7 million a year? Really?

I sometimes wonder about the ultra-rich. How much money is enough? Some will never even be able to spend the interest on their fortunes and yet it is never enough. What is the point?




edit on 22-9-2011 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)


The issue is not if you or I think that said person can live on 7 million instead of 9 million. The issue is why is it any of your business what they live on or spend.
The other issue is why should they pay more. Because they make more? That is wrong.
That is that persons money, yet you, others and the Govt think it is righteous to declare them unfit to keep their own money.



Yes, but the argument Billo makes remains: My 6 millions are worth 100.000.
If I have to pay 100.000 more in taxes I will not want to earn the 6 millions.
That makes no sense, whether it's fair or not.

On Fairness: Money has an interesting property: dimnishing returns.
A little thought experiment can show this nicely.
If I hand Warren Buffet 100.000$ he will go "thank you". Take it. But It wouldn't really change much for him.
If I hand Billo 100.000$ he will go "thank you". Take it. But it wouldn't really change much for him either.
If I hand 100.000$ to Flemming he can "feed his family" for 3 months, but he could do that anyway.
If I hand you 100.000$ you would propably do something with it, and depending on your current income be moderately to very happy about it.
If I hand 100.000$ to a homeless person he will stop being homeless for several years.
It's like any other good really


It is simple to understand his stance once you come to terms with a sliding scale of taxes is punishment.
When you work harder, be it physically, mentally or both, get a better contract due to your successes, you should reap the benefits of that. Not have to pay more in taxes.
You must also come to terms that it is his money, not yours. You have no say in how he spends or what he spends it on.
Just as I have no say what you do with your money.

edit on 22-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by pavil

Sure the tax increase won't kill him, however maybe it will cause him to go from 5 new stores and 5 remodels to 4 new stores and 2 remodels, that's what he is talking about. Of course some here will lambast him for owning 5 more stores. America sure has changed in the last few years.



Stop right there
Opening new stores and remodeling isn't in the 600.000
That's in the 6 million.
There is a tax on that, yes, and it's really stupid that it is there, and if you want to get rid of that, I would say yes, yes, yes!
Nobody else in the civilized world does that.
But he will not have to stop opening new locations or remodeling if his income tax is raised.
edit on 22-9-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)


Umm no. That money for expansion and remodels comes out of profit from the venture or outside financing or you just lower your profit. You get to write off startup expenses and depreciate things on your tax return and it would then be part of the expenses of running the businesses. He makes 600,000 profit from the stores. All of this depends on how you have your business entity setup as well.

The initial amount of capital to remodel and add locations has to come from somewhere. In your world, where did it come from? I'm honestly curious as to where you think he will get the money to do the remodels and expansion.
edit on 22-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


But then again you can argue that on any tax.
0 tax=0 government.
I know that some people would love that, but I kinda like... roads, courts, police, heck, I guess most countries should even have a military!

I also not that almost nobody in this thread said anything about the numbers.
At what tax rate do you think billo should move down to 300.000? (considering anything below 100% means he will have less money.)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl
reply to post by macman
 


But then again you can argue that on any tax.
0 tax=0 government.
I know that some people would love that, but I kinda like... roads, courts, police, heck, I guess most countries should even have a military!

I also not that almost nobody in this thread said anything about the numbers.
At what tax rate do you think billo should move down to 300.000? (considering anything below 100% means he will have less money.)


Who said no taxes. Nice way of trying to subvert the comment by going all black and white.
The sliding scale of tax increase is punishment.
The fact that a person making around $45k a year gets all their taxes back is the glowing example that the few carry the many.
And before you start in on "well the rich have loop holes", that is now what is being discussed.
The burden is still carried by the few.

I say flat tax or fair tax.
Either everyone one making an income pays the same percentage with no right offs, or do away with income tax and tax goods, thus everyone gets taxed.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


fine lets say bill moves

then who are you all going to hate on

wouldnt you want to think about job security?

no one to hate on puts people out of work

theres putting a face on tax increases


I guess if he moves, we can only hate on Obama.

Also, we need to stop calling this guy a "Small Business" owner. He owns franchises of major corporations, not privately owned and operated businesses.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


But you can't deny that 100.000 dollars are worth more to you than to warren buffet!
That's why a flat tax sounds fair, but really isn't.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by pavil

Sure the tax increase won't kill him, however maybe it will cause him to go from 5 new stores and 5 remodels to 4 new stores and 2 remodels, that's what he is talking about. Of course some here will lambast him for owning 5 more stores. America sure has changed in the last few years.



Stop right there
Opening new stores and remodeling isn't in the 600.000
That's in the 6 million.
There is a tax on that, yes, and it's really stupid that it is there, and if you want to get rid of that, I would say yes, yes, yes!
Nobody else in the civilized world does that.
But he will not have to stop opening new locations or remodeling if his income tax is raised.
edit on 22-9-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)


Umm no. That money for expansion and remodels comes out of profit from the venture or outside financing or you just lower your profit. You get to write off startup expenses and depreciate things on your tax return and it would then be part of the expenses of running the businesses. He makes 600,000 profit from the stores. All of this depends on how you have your business entity setup as well.

The initial amount of capital to remodel and add locations has to come from somewhere. In your world, where did it come from? I'm honestly curious as to where you think he will get the money to do the remodels and expansion.
edit on 22-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)


His wording makes it difficult


Fleming told Jansing that the $6.3 million is "before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food."

Erm... so thats not 6.3 million profit but turnover?
Actually I think 600.000 from just 6.3 Million turnover is pretty nice.
But you are definitely right. That part of the taxcode needs some changes.
Edit to add:
All right, that would mean his subways sell 73 5$ sandwiches a week...
just 10 footlongs a day? I have my doubts.
edit on 22-9-2011 by narwahl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Also, we need to stop calling this guy a "Small Business" owner. He owns franchises of major corporations, not privately owned and operated businesses.


You don't think he is a Small business owner? Ok. It's his money invested, in a venture he runs within a franchise structure. The franchisor won't bail him out if he fails. They are privately owned and operated businesses.

Subway was started by two guys who borrowed $1,000 to setup the first Subway shop.

I'm not a Subway owner, just pointing out that the vast majority of it's almost 38,000 stores are owned by individual franchisee's. To be really successful at it, I would guess you need at least 4 Subways to really get a decent income from them.

edit on 22-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
3...2...1 until the GOP/TP tries to spin this as if EVERYONE had to pay more taxes


Without tax increases, the deficit will never be fixed. No amount of spending cuts alone can solve the issue...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
3...2...1 until the GOP/TP tries to spin this as if EVERYONE had to pay more taxes


Without tax increases, the deficit will never be fixed. No amount of spending cuts alone can solve the issue...


We are actually at about -12000 with that: Remember the constant "50% pay no taxes at all"?



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Also, we need to stop calling this guy a "Small Business" owner. He owns franchises of major corporations, not privately owned and operated businesses.


You don't think he is a Small business owner? Ok. It's his money invested, in a venture he runs within a franchise structure. The franchisor won't bail him out if he fails. They are privately owned and operated businesses.

Subway was started by two guys who borrowed $1,000 to setup the first Subway shop.

I'm not a Subway owner, just pointing out that the vast majority of it's almost 38,000 stores are owned by individual franchisee's. To be really successful at it, I would guess you need at least 4 Subways to really get a decent income from them.

edit on 22-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)


No, I don't consider him a small business owner, I consider him a frachise owner.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
3...2...1 until the GOP/TP tries to spin this as if EVERYONE had to pay more taxes


Without tax increases, the deficit will never be fixed. No amount of spending cuts alone can solve the issue...


I disagree. Not tax increases, broadening the tax base will help fix the deficit. Take the 14 million or so that are unemployed. If half of them get working again, the money we shell out for unemployment goes down, food stamps, medicaid ect. On top of that, they put in easily twice as much tax dollars as they did when on unemployment. More people working in real jobs, not government created temporary jobs is the real solution to fixing the budget and our country.

You can raise taxes on people, that won't solve the issue when you don't trim spending at the same time. All you will do is increase Govt's % of the economy, to the detriment of real businesses. Every dollar the government uses could be a dollar that is freed up to support businesses.

We need to
1. Get people working in the real economy, not government sponsored temporary jobs. A fully employed America is the best solution to our current situation. You can cover up a ton of wasteful government spending when you have the taxes rolling in from people working.

2. Trim the bloated Federal Budget. The States already understand that they can't spend more then they take in. You see them cost cutting and trimming, not raising taxes for the most part.

3. Yes, you can raise revenues but you have to be smart and careful about it. To raise taxes and not trim the budget is stupid beyond belief right now. You can raise revenues in many ways that won't hurt job growth. Any revenue raising need to go towards paying the deficit down. We aren't attempting that now. The Jobs Bill proposed by President Obama is paid for with those tax increases he mentions, they don't lower the deficit.
That President Obama suddenly realizes that Jobs are important, speaks volumes to me. A little late to the party for me.



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join