Letter From the Boss -My Butt

You want a fair system, then force a flat rate tax. If you spend $100, you pay tax on that amount. If you spend $1,000,000 then you pay tax on that amount. On top of that, certain things should not be taxed at all. Every time that subject is brought up, the uppers get all in a dither and do the best to kick bumbstead out of the office again.
No massive tax code to try and figure out, just a simple formula to compute it and collect it. Done.

Originally posted by zarp3333

The questions you ask are rational and valid. I am by no means advocating any form of communism. I never would have taken the chance to open a bar if the busboy made near as much money as I did.

What I am saying is this. Although I raised the capital, took all of the risk, invested in college and worked harder than the Honduran busboy, the bar could not have operated without him.

What is a "fair" split of the income? During the first 5 years it was open, I made about $240,000/year. The busboy made about $25,000. The dishwasher made half of that.

I never had a problem making 10 times more money than the busboy or 20 times the dishwasher. I would say what i brought to the table was worth 10 or 20 even 40 times more. How much is too much?

We can all agree that income should be a function of intelligence, hard work risk and luck. But we live in a society where bankers are making 100 - 1,000 times more than a teacher. That is absolutely insane. The same goes for the Dominican baseball player making 1,000 times more than the Dominican dishwasher.

Does the banker or ball player really bring 1,000 times more value to our society?

It's sometimes hard to convey the life of an entrepreneur to the hourly employee. I applaud your hard work and success. Many families depend on you for their wellbeing. I bet you are a fair steward.

What do you think is fair?

If you only paid your busboy $25k a year and feel that is should be more, then by all means pay him more. We have roofers that along the way after showing loyalty and good work get raises, as im sure other companies do. If the busboy thinks he isnt getting compensated enough then he should look for a job elsewhere or perhaps stay on with you, learn the business a bit, save some money and try and open up for himself. That is how most people open up businesses. In fact, thats how my families business got started. My grandfather learned the ropes from somebody else and felt he could make more money by himself. Sure enough, he took the risk and what money he had and opened up.

Im sure you had some experience in the bar scene before you opened up, didnt you? If not, well then you got brass balls cause I know personally that it isnt easy to make money in that environment. What Im getting to tho is that your view of what your employees should and shouldnt recieve out of your profits shouldnt be dictated by the government. YOU should be the responsible person and realize if he is an employee who you cant really see yourself working without then by all means pay him more to keep him there.

Yes, there are many bankers who make way more then teachers. Yes, there are ball players that make more then busboys. The thing of it is, some people want to be teachers instead of bankers. Now, should we pay them more cause they want to be a teacher? What if they arent any good at being a teacher? Ive known several teachers that I had have sucked as a teacher, should they get paid more just cause they are a teacher?

Also, we live in a capatilist society. That means you put for the risk and hope for the returns. As a consumer, you also have the right not to buy the crap they are selling. If you dont like that the Dominican ballplayer is being paid way more, boycott watching the team. Convince your friends to not watch for the same reason as you. If you get enough people, maybe they will cut how much they are paying some of these guys (im with you on that one as far as sports are concerned lol). But who is to say that Dominican ballplayer should be paid less? And what if he wont play for less money, which they often do. Then do you go without him or pay him what he wants?

Also, its not that they actually bring 1000 times more value to our society, it just happens to be what our society wants. Take the ball players for example...they are entertainment, pure and simple. They show athletic abilities that most people dont have. They also, and very often, end up with many issues after they are done playing which result in mass amounts of medical bills. Knowing that these people put their bodies thru hell for our entertainment which also more often then not ends up shortening their lives or at the very least having a miserable one, isnt enough compensation to pay for those medical bills in the future ok? Take most basketball players for example, after they retire of 20 years or more on the court, most cant walk around their houses in the morning without icepacks on their knees to alieviate their injuries. The same for football players. In fact, name pro players that live into their late 60's or 70's who actually have decent lives without drug addiction from pain meds or are able to really get around well without horrible pain.

Amazing thread. OP, you need to speak often
S+F

reply to post by dizzie56


I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you in principle. I feel that small business owners should have significant tax breaks. What I am against is the tax breaks that allow major corporations and the top 1% of Americans to get away without paying any taxes, or in some cases getting fat tax refunds.

I am not asking someone who is struggling to get their business off the ground to pay more than me, just to pay their fair share on their income. If they choose to place part of their income back into the business, that is their choice, but it does not mean that they should be allowed to not pay tax on that income.

They can always set up the accounting so that they do not actually have income, just a drawing account, so they would only be taxed on the money they actually withdraw from the business for their personal expenses.

IMO, businesses with less than 200K a year profits should never pay more than 15%, 200K - 350K 20%, 350K - 500K 25%, Higher than 500 K 30%. These percentages should include the payroll 'matching' taxes as well.

Personal federal income tax should be capped at ~ 10%, state,county,city, altogether should not exceed 3%, and there should never be a sales tax whatsoever. Also, those individuals that earn 25K a year or less should pay at half or less until their yearly income increases.

I happen to be lucky enough that I reside in a state without one, and have never understood why people should be taxed for the privilege of purchasing goods.

I am also against luxury tax and estate tax, by whatever names the politicians have given them.

All I am asking is that everyone pay their fair share.

Just wanted to add, I am not a Herman Cain supporter, I just think he has a some decent ideas on taxes.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
reply to post by dizzie56

 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you in principle. I feel that small business owners should have significant tax breaks. What I am against is the tax breaks that allow major corporations and the top 1% of Americans to get away without paying any taxes, or in some cases getting fat tax refunds.

I am not asking someone who is struggling to get their business off the ground to pay more than me, just to pay their fair share on their income. If they choose to place part of their income back into the business, that is their choice, but it does not mean that they should be allowed to not pay tax on that income.

They can always set up the accounting so that they do not actually have income, just a drawing account, so they would only be taxed on the money they actually withdraw from the business for their personal expenses.

IMO, businesses with less than 200K a year profits should never pay more than 15%, 200K - 350K 20%, 350K - 500K 25%, Higher than 500 K 30%. These percentages should include the payroll 'matching' taxes as well.

Personal federal income tax should be capped at ~ 10%, state,county,city, altogether should not exceed 3%, and there should never be a sales tax whatsoever. Also, those individuals that earn 25K a year or less should pay at half or less until their yearly income increases.

I happen to be lucky enough that I reside in a state without one, and have never understood why people should be taxed for the privilege of purchasing goods.

I am also against luxury tax and estate tax, by whatever names the politicians have given them.

All I am asking is that everyone pay their fair share.

Just wanted to add, I am not a Herman Cain supporter, I just think he has a some decent ideas on taxes.

What you just said is completely different from what Ive seen coming out of the Occupy movement. To me, the idea that you have to tax everybody (including businesses) who make $200k/year at the same rate you would for somebody who makes $1mill/year is rediculous. It really just doesnt make any sense to me in that it doesnt give you any incentive to go and open your own business and hope to better your own life.

Personally, I would just like to see a flat 10% tax on everything we buy (companies included) and thats it. Couple that with smart cuts in spending in Congress and actually going after welfare, unemployment, healthcare and corporate fraud and I believe we will do just fine. No loopholes whatsoever. Everytime a company or a person buys something then 10% automatically gets kicked in to the gov.

At the same time, I think we need to kick up the tax on imported goods and increase the taxes on companies that push there business overseas. Say 35% or so to make it a good incentive to not do business overseas as much. With a 10% tax on all goods and no coprorate income tax companies will have no true reason to complain about being taxed to death over here to the point where its no longer viable for business.

We should also have no taxes on start up businesses for the first 2 years of business to give people a chance to actually make it. But then again, you will have to monitor this heavily to make sure that all the purchases by the company in those first 2 years are for the company and not for the owner. Like the owner cant just go out and buy a new house or boat and say its for business when in almost all cases its not. Going after fraud and having strong minimum punishment levels will strongly curve fraud for start up companies in those first 2 years. An example of the punishment could be that you have to kick in the 10% tax and also match the amount of the purchase you made. So if you went out and fraudulently bought a boat thats $60k you owe $66k to the gov.

But, then again, this is just me dreaming. We really need to get rid of most people in Congress and monitor those that we put in their place. Whether you are a dem or republican or an independent, its up to you to monitor the representitives in Congress from your district. The first sign of that person leaning towards a certain company or industry you gotta get rid of em cause once they get a lil taste they are hooked like junkies on the power and money they receive.

"I have to hire a tax man just to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him."

This is where I knew it was BS, accountants fee's are a tax deduction, they are not taxed.

reply to post by zarp3333


200k in 1961 - what would be the equivalent sum today? Average income in 1961 was around $5k per annum ($200k = 40 times average income). Today the average income (so they say) is $45-50k (actually rising to the region of $70k by the time the highest salaries are included.)

So to his the equivalent income required before having to pay circa 90% tax today you'd have to be earning in the region of $2,000,000 per annum. How many would that actually impact? Not many.

averagesalary.com

Trickle down theory is economic hocum - a solution devised by Milton Friedman and pounced upon by Reaganites and Thatcherites alike. Even though a few short years later Friedman admitted to flaws in his theories - that an economy could not simply be run lean, mean and caring only about the bottom line because employment served a function in society that gave it a cohesiveness and direction. That if all workers salaries were reduced to the bone, paid off, or jobs outsourced to cheaper economies, at the end of the day no-one in society would have the dosh to buy any products....the rich could have their wealth but would have created an environment they probably wouldn't want to raise their kids in.

T he Independent

Their solution to the fall in individual buying power predicted by Friedman was to relax credit conditions for everyone - we reached the pinnacle of that solution in 2008 and we are still staving off the immediate consequences without changing the core causes.

Friedman did attempt to tell corporate government of the flaws in his theories but said by that time they were individually, and collectively, making too much money to give it up. He was asked what he saw as being the next 'boom' industry in the West - he answered 'the caring professions' because we have ageing populations, machines can't do the job and you can't outsource. Now it's in society's interest to have a large sector of the population requiring 'care' - be it in hospital, or be it in prison, or by social workers etc.

Stop the merry-go-round I want to get off.

I agree with both the original rant (that spurred this response) and what was said here in this post, OP.

It's all perspective: The original letter is true for small business owners, false for the megacorps, while this CPA loophole rant is true for the Megas and probably not true for the smalltime guys.

Am I wrong?