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