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.

 

GOP Poverty Creators Plan to Increase Taxes on 22.9 Million Poor and Middle Class Families

page: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

You have to raise taxes.

The poor and the middle class are the most expendable groups to Big Corporate.


John_Rodger_Cornman, the first part of this is NOT directed at you; it's in response to that portion of your post that quoted member "grey580" and the article and portion of the text he quoted in his post.

The article posted by 'grey580' to whom you responded is an extremely biased article. In one part, the article states "One need not be an economic expert to know Republicans’ refusal to pass job creation plans..." What the article fails to mention that there are TWENTY-NINE (29) bipartisan Jobs Bills sitting in Senate right NOW. Reid won't allow them to come to the floor - so WHO, exactly, is refusing to create jobs or consider plans that would create them? It seems to me that the House has come together and set aside party differences for the purpose of job creation but Reid (a Democrat currently in charge of Senate) won't even let them be heard.

I'm a fiscally conservative Independent and I *do* agree with doing away with the Earned Income Credit and the child tax credit IF they are slowly phased out. I do NOT agree with any further tax benefits to corporations UNLESS those credits are specifically crafted to apply ONLY to what can be shown to produce more jobs and the burden of proof that any credits taken DID enable that corporation to hire 'x' number of people need to be upon the corporation PRIOR to the credit being allowed.

Before anyone screams that I'm "willing to starve children" (a catch-all phrase used too long now to either vilify one group or make saints of another, depending upon application of the phrase), please allow me the courtesy of explaining my position on the Earned Income Credit and child tax credit. The Earned Income Credit is money GIVEN to someone for income they did NOT earn as a REWARD for having more children than the recipients of such credit can afford to care for.

Why does anyone in this Country expect their fellow citizens to support children they CHOSE to have KNOWING they could not afford to support them?! I would never expect anyone else to support MY children; but, neither would I have children that I knew I would be unable to support. Same goes for the child tax credit. While disguised as "tax credits," those "tax credits" are nothing but another expansion of the welfare state. The welfare state has grown so far out of proportion that it is unsustainable. At SOME point Americans MUST return to the notion that they are responsible for themselves AND for any children they choose to bring into this world.

School lunch programs would be better returned to the individual States. By having it (and leaving it) at the Federal level, we allow the government to mandate that we're responsible for feeding other people's children. I do not mind lending a helping hand to someone in need and I have done so on many occasions (even when I had to do without something for myself in order to do it) - and I willingly sacrificed to help someone have groceries in their home because *I* believe that is part of my job as a human being. I would never knowingly let a child go without food. But I do NOT believe the government has the right to force me to do so through taxation.

That said, I cannot tell you how many times I've stood in a grocery store line hoping I had calculated my purchases correctly and had enough money to cover them. Meanwhile, ahead of me in the line, there stands someone with beautifully done hair (my hair hasn't see a salon for 20 years because I can't *afford* it), nicer clothing that I am able to afford, better items in their cart than I am able to afford, who then holds out a Lone Star Card (food stamps in Texas) with one beautifully salon-manicured hand while the other beautifully manicured hand is holding a cell phone. And, once, I even saw such a family walk out and get into a "baby" Benz.
Yes, I most certainly DO take issue with that!

If you can't feed your own children, you canNOT afford salon hair and nails. If you and your kids can wear brand new, name brand athletic shoes and you own a cellphone, then I don't really believe you need ANYONE'S help - I believe you need classes on budgeting and financial responsibility and family planning and I will GLADLY contribute to those if it means I eat nothing but beans and rice one month out of the year!

In answer to John_Rodger_Cornman's portion of the post: Yes, we do need to increased taxes but WHILE also decreasing gov't spending.

Sadly, you're right about the poor and middle classes being the most expendable groups to Big Corporate. THAT is what we need to change, along with reducing the size, scope, salaries, perks and spending of our government and those WE employ in it.

But it is NOT just the GOP; the Dems are just as guilty, if not not more so.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar

Sure we could have the conversation; you're just choosing not to.


No, we actually cannot. I am using the word "small business" as it is being used in these articles, by the MSM, by politicians, and as it is legally defined. You want it to be something cuter and cuddlier. That is what they want you to want too. I know the truth and will only discuss that. I cannot pretend reality is what you want it to be and then have a real discussion with you about what you want reality to be. Small business is defined as is for a reason. So a millionaire can get tax breaks, stay rich, and stand next to "Joe the Plumber" at a rally and pretend to be just another little guy. The TEA party eats that # up. I did not expect you to.

When you are I are both using the word the same way everyone else is, we can talk about it. Until you stop deciding to make up your own definition and then converse with me using a word you know I, and the world, define differently then we can go forward.

Please tell me that you understand why I cannot get very far with someone who makes up their own definitions for words.

T. Kendall Hunt, a small business, owns over $250 Millions dollars worth of his small business. He wants to pay less in taxes.
When you speak of the plight of th small business owner. Who benefits? People like T. Hunt because he, myself, and the law are all using the same definition.

See why I do not want to talk to you using two different sets of definitions?
edit on 7-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
We will not survive the move back to VOODOO ECONOMICS. Instead of Trickle Down Economics, let's try heads on pikes lining the Beltway.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I am in the latter part of the baby boom generation, and I am just looking at this as our big brothers and sisters getting their last jab in on us......yep, they'll get their social security, they will raid their iras and bring the value down of ours to nothing, and well, we will be stuck providing a portion of our kid's needs till we are 99 and dropping dead at work!!!


I can't even address the rest of your post. You seem so angry and it doesn't seem like anything anyone else says is going to sway you from that anger.

But that part above. Really? That's how you take that? That someone is getting 'their last jab' in on you? Who is the "they" to whom you refer? The "they" that has stolen Social Security and IRA accounts is the government for borrowing from Social Security when it was set up as a Trust (read: Ponzi Scheme) and they were not supposed to EVER borrow from it; the value of IRAs were stolen with unnecessary inflation caused by the Fed and the crash of '08 caused by the burst in the housing bubble which came about as a result of the Clinton Administration demanding banks lend to unqualified borrowers who then defaulted.

"They" is the government giving full Social Security benefits to immigrants, legal or otherwise, who've never paid a dime into it. It's the Affordable Health Care TAX that's giving the Medicare paid for out of our tax dollars to millions upon millions of people who've never contributed a dime to it.

But you think it's other people doing it to you?

I'm sorry that you seem so angry but I've no idea what it is that you're actually angry about. Perhaps if you researched a little more you might not be so angry, or at least might have a better idea at whose feet that anger needs to be placed.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom

So your saying that the super rich don't influence the lives of the other 99.9%?


I'm saying the success of the rich does not create someone's elses failures. Obama wants to tax the rich more and that comes to 85 billion more in taxes...enough to run the country for 3 days...but it's a great tool to get votes.




Do you really believe that if we were all as ambitious as say you or someone richer that we all could be as rich as you or the top 0.1%?


What I'm saying is everyone makes life choices, good and bad and those that make bad choices find it easier to blame something else and not themselves...



Do you really think that we all want something for nothing?


Of course we ALL do...



Do you really think that ambition is the only factor in determining our success?


I truely don't equate ambition or money to success, but Obama has... and that is why we see a class warfare, 99%ers etc...



I never wanted to run a business. I never wanted to work on wall street. I was happy with what i was doing until about 2008 when my job was eliminated! When someone thinks they have the world all figured out that's when they need to take a good look around them cause life is all just perception and they are usually wrong about alot of things! I found that out in 2008 when will you learn it?


I'm not doing what I did 4 years ago...you might have been successful in 2008 and then your job went away, does that mean you can't be successful in another line of work?


If the success of the rich was just about success and not about influence I would not have a problem with them!
You have to admit that with more money being spent on campaign contributions, Lobbying groups and lawyers designed to evade the tax system there is something wrong here. There seems to be more going on here then just envy of the super rich by your average joe!
From what i see, the way the banking system is bailed out, leant monies at very low interest rates and then they lend it to the rest of society at exorbanate rates! The way the corporate world controls and manipulates the information that is allowed by them to be presented to the masses by the MSM! The way very large farms, oil companies and industry is subsidized by tax monies! The way certain industries pay no taxes at all! The way some industries are allowed to destroy the environment! I could go on and on here but what's the point?
How are small businesses supposed to compete with large monopolies when they can buy bulk at large discounts? Yet you believe none of this has any effect on the rest of society as a whole! How can you say that none of this has any effect? How can you say this is not influence over the rest of us?
About me switching jobs so i can be successful in another line of work!
Yeh i have so much opportunity today and have so many jobs to choose from! Though it seems they are all low paying jobs in the service sector cause all the living wage jobs are outsourced to foreign countries for insignificant pay! Most of what you have said is true except the context you presented it in is wrong IMHO! I don't blame the rich at all because it's not their fault that they took advantage of this system that the American people have allowed to continue! Who I blame the most are us in general because it was our stupidity that allowed the super rich to influence the lose of wages and any lack of economic regulation while allowing this one party system to be so instrumental in the political arena! Yes i do consider the democratic/republican parties to be the same!
Influence is everywhere and to say it's not a factor in the way we live is just a blatent lie!
As far as making good and bad decisions It seems that if you know the right people risk can be rewarded!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

No, we actually cannot. I am using the word "small business" as it is being used in these articles, by the MSM, by politicians, and as it is legally defined. You want it to be something cuter and cuddlier. That is what they want you to want too. I know the truth and will only discuss that. I cannot pretend reality is what you want it to be and then have a real discussion with you about what you want reality to be. Small business is defined as is for a reason. So a millionaire can get tax breaks, stay rich, and stand next to "Joe the Plumber" at a rally and pretend to be just another little guy. The TEA party eats that # up. I did not expect you to.

When you are I are both using the word the same way everyone else is, we can talk about it. Until you stop deciding to make up your own definition and then converse with me using a word you know I, and the world, define differently then we can go forward.

Please tell me that you understand why I cannot get very far with someone who makes up their own definitions for words.

T. Kendall Hunt, a small business, owns over $250 Millions dollars worth of his small business. He wants to pay less in taxes.
When you speak of the plight of th small business owner. Who benefits? People like T. Hunt because he, myself, and the law are all using the same definition.

See why I do not want to talk to you using two different sets of definitions?
edit on 7-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)


If you choose not to see what causes the rift, refuse to acknowledge that we can agree to disagree that there IS a rift, that such rift COULD be fixed, and that there's a massive difference between Joe the Struggling Self-Employed Plumber and T. Hunt, then of course there's no dialogue to be had. But it's not something I chose. It's something you chose.

You can accuse me of being "TEA Party," wanting things to be "something cuter and cuddlier," or whatever else you want to accuse me of being/doing. You're entitled to your opinion; however, I've made myself abundantly clear and have gone overboard in explaining my stance. I have no control over you refusing to accept that there's any way but YOUR way but I will respect that that is how you feel.

So, I tried to have a good dialogue with you and I acknowledge that you're not interested in doing so.

Thank you for what dialogue we did have. I hope that, over time, you are able to see a bigger picture and maybe one day learn that, sometimes, it IS the subtle nuances that make the big differences.

Good luck to you.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

edit on 7-8-2012 by nosacrificenofreedom because: repost



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


You have shown many valid points. Unfortunatally, there are those that will refuse to consider your wisdom or simply take the time to research the facts. Give them a full glass and they will pour half of it out so it can be half empty.

Peace



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


That sad part is that I agree with so much of what you have posted on ATS and in this thread. There is really just one little difference and judging by your response, it was not handled well at all.


Originally posted by SeesFar
If you choose not to see what causes the rift, refuse to acknowledge that we can agree to disagree that there IS a rift, that such rift COULD be fixed, and that there's a massive difference between Joe the Struggling Self-Employed Plumber and T. Hunt, then of course there's no dialogue to be had. But it's not something I chose. It's something you chose.


I agree with all of those things. My post history in this thread shows this and nothing I have written to you says otherwise.



You can accuse me of being "TEA Party," wanting things to be "something cuter and cuddlier," or whatever else you want to accuse me of being/doing. You're entitled to your opinion; however, I've made myself abundantly clear and have gone overboard in explaining my stance. I have no control over you refusing to accept that there's any way but YOUR way but I will respect that that is how you feel.


BUT YOU DO NOT GET YOUR OWN SET OF FACTS. What is and is not a small business is defined. What it is can be found. It is a fact. You are choosing to use it the way the TEA Party wants you to use it. I do not understand why. We can actually look it up. We cannot discuss a topic using a term we do not agree on the meaning of.


So, I tried to have a good dialogue with you and I acknowledge that you're not interested in doing so.


I was and am actually quite interested but we cannot move forward about anything regarding the term "small business" at this point. Perhaps we can discuss why you ignore what a small business actually is and choose to use it as the TEA party wants it to be used.


Thank you for what dialogue we did have. I hope that, over time, you are able to see a bigger picture and maybe one day learn that, sometimes, it IS the subtle nuances that make the big differences.

Good luck to you.


If you were really reading anything I wrote until now you might realize how many of those stars you got were from me agreeing with you on things. It seems all you read was that one part of that last post and you did not quite get it right, having it all out of context and all.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Henley
reply to post by SeesFar
 


You have shown many valid points. Unfortunatally, there are those that will refuse to consider your wisdom or simply take the time to research the facts. Give them a full glass and they will pour half of it out so it can be half empty.

Peace



Considering I wrote posts that agree with the vast majority of his posts, I see that to.
I just refuse to pretend words mean something they do not and if that is what has to be done to go forward then backward we will stay.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm
That sad part is that I agree with so much of what you have posted on ATS and in this thread. There is really just one little difference and judging by your response, it was not handled well at all.


But not handled well by whom? From your perspective, I didn't handle it well. From my perspective, you didn't handle it well. I'm laughing right now - not at you - at both of us. I think we're on the exact same page, but our approach to the page lies in our individuality. It could be nothing more than one of those right brain/left brain things. I'm a little weird, every right brain/left brain test I've ever taken comes out exactly in the middle.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
I agree with all of those things. My post history in this thread shows this and nothing I have written to you says otherwise.


Which is why I was/am so interested in what you have to say. You come across as very angry in many of your posts (not lately, but before) but I thought, perhaps, your anger was way more your utter frustration with an unjust system. Maybe I was wrong? I don't know and I'm not judging - i'm just trying to 'hear' you because I feel what you have to say is important.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
BUT YOU DO NOT GET YOUR OWN SET OF FACTS. What is and is not a small business is defined. What it is can be found. It is a fact. You are choosing to use it the way the TEA Party wants you to use it. I do not understand why. We can actually look it up. We cannot discuss a topic using a term we do not agree on the meaning of.


And you do? It most definitely is NOT defined - it is 'coded' - that's why it's called a Tax CODE and not a tax LAW. The CODE contains laws and those laws within the CODE, as well as the CODE, itself, are INTERPRETED and the interpretation constantly shifts. See? Nuances.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
I was and am actually quite interested but we cannot move forward about anything regarding the term "small business" at this point. Perhaps we can discuss why you ignore what a small business actually is and choose to use it as the TEA party wants it to be used.


I worked for attorneys for YEARS. I've read parts of the Tax Code MANY times. I know exactly (though I could not quote it) how a small business is currently DEFINED in the Tax Code, but I also know what a TRUE small business really IS. I also know what people will DO to get around it and other laws. And I know what Congress has done to ALLOW "certain" people to abuse it.

What I do NOT know is how the TEA Party uses it or wants it to be used, to use your wording. Do you? You claim to!

I believe the TEA party started out initially as a good thing; I also believe they've been infiltrated and taken over by RINOs disguising themselves as true fiscal conservatives for the point of getting elected. I believe both the GOP and the Dems have done some good things and many bad things as political parties but, bigger than that, I believe that they work hand-in-glove with one another to achieve that which most benefits the politicians and their family and friends. After all, it IS Congress that writes the Tax Code AND interprets it's laws. What a leeway, huh? They get to write the CODE and THEN they get to INTERPRET the CODE *and* make it possible for SOME to circumvent it.

The Tax Code, the ACA, the NDAA, the Patriot Act - all that and more - is specifically written with what is called "gray language" and it's done so intentionally so that they (those we elect) can later claim that while it may READ to be "A," it is INTERPRETED as "B," for so long as "B" suits their needs. Then it can be interpreted as "C," later, "D," etc

So, while I accept that YOU are using 'small business' according to the Tax Code, you come across as unwilling to accept that I am viewing the situation from the point of what a REAL small business was/is meant to be versus what those who abuse the system currently INTERPRET it to be.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
If you were really reading anything I wrote until now you might realize how many of those stars you got were from me agreeing with you on things. It seems all you read was that one part of that last post and you did not quite get it right, having it all out of context and all.


Thank you; and, nope, I read all of each of your posts and starred many of them, as well. Don't presume you know what I "get" or don't "get." Just because I do not agree with you and will not share what I view as your rather concrete thinking does not, by any means, indicate that I don't "get" anything. And there's ALWAYS the chance that you're not explaining your own point clearly enough.
I've done the same thing many times, which is why I try to word everything I write so carefully. We ALL fail to make our positions clear at times.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Considering I wrote posts that agree with the vast majority of his posts, I see that to.
I just refuse to pretend words mean something they do not and if that is what has to be done to go forward then backward we will stay.


"His" is a "hers"


2nd



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
But not handled well by whom? From your perspective, I didn't handle it well. From my perspective, you didn't handle it well. I'm laughing right now - not at you - at both of us. I think we're on the exact same page, but our approach to the page lies in our individuality. It could be nothing more than one of those right brain/left brain things. I'm a little weird, every right brain/left brain test I've ever taken comes out exactly in the middle.


I am not laughing because this is just sad. We are more than on the same page about almost everything. For some reason though, you refuse to use words as they are actually defined. I do not. I am sorry but I do not know how to ignore actual definitions and adopt TEA party talking points.

Why you would do it is killing me.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar

I worked for attorneys for YEARS. I've read parts of the Tax Code MANY times. I know exactly (though I could not quote it) how a small business is currently DEFINED in the Tax Code, but I also know what a TRUE small business really IS. I also know what people will DO to get around it and other laws. And I know what Congress has done to ALLOW "certain" people to abuse it.


So why do you use it the same way the TEA party does?
Obama says he wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.
Those people are technically small business owners.
The TEA party says he wants to raise taxes on small business owners.
You repeat what the TEA party said.
You both ignore the fact that what a real small business is, will not qualify for that tax hike anyway.

So why are you tossing TEA party talking points at me?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I got an idea.

Ban all welfare. Poor people eat in non-profit soup kitchens(if there are any in thier town) or opt into state sponsored slave labor.

Remove the minimum wage.

Ban collective bargaining.

Ban guns of all kind.

Euthanasia for the chronically ill poor.

No overtime for people not on fixed salary,management or government jobs.

No low income housing. People sleep in the street or live in a homeless shelter(if there are any in town).

Auto-sterilization, not negotiable.

Urine tests for social services.

Manditory civilian para-military "security" services to earn your food stamps,cash assistance and other benefits.

All drug addicts are forced to rehab.

Raise taxes on the poor to make it so they can barely buy luxury merchandise.

Rich pay no taxes at all.

Prisoners = federal subsidized rent-a-slaves. Sell prison slave labor to private businesses.

Bring back the military draft...for the poor.

Manditory abortions for poor with more than one child.

Praise Mao!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
A 2-for-1 reply


Originally posted by nunyadammm
I am not laughing because this is just sad. We are more than on the same page about almost everything. For some reason though, you refuse to use words as they are actually defined. I do not. I am sorry but I do not know how to ignore actual definitions and adopt TEA party talking points.

Why you would do it is killing me.


I explained why I cannot use the definition; the "definition" as stated in the Tax Code is not a "definition" - it is an ever changing, mutable code.

I cannot understand how you can fail to see (and acknowledge) that our hypothetical "Joe the Self Employed Plumber" who employs 12 people in his VERY small business is a TRUE small business, while "ABC Enterprises" with publicly traded stock, 300+ employees, a Board of Directors and a high-bonused CEO is NOT a small business BUT due to the INTERPRETATION of the Tax CODE is allowed the same deductions as Joe. Joe is suffering financially, pouring his own money into his small business and racking up monumental credit debt trying to stay afloat and keep those 12 people employed while ABC Enterprises enjoys a high profit margin and is giving their CEO a $100k bonus every year - YET THEY'RE BOTH SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS CONTAINED IN THE TAX CODE. One is SUFFERING and being taxed out of business due to the interpretation of the Tax CODE while the other profits and avoids paying taxes due to the INTERPRETATION of the SAME TAX CODE.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
So why do you use it the same way the TEA party does?


Again, I do NOT know what the "TEA Party talking points" are that you continue to erroneously accuse me of using. I asked you if YOU know what they are and you didn't answer my question. So, either you DO know what they are and can educate me to that and then I'll understand why you're accusing me of it -OR- you DON'T know what they are and you're simply accusing me. Which is it?


Originally posted by nunyadammm
Obama says he wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.


So he says, which is just another indication of his utter lack of any business acumen. As far as I can determine, he's talking INCOME of $250k or more - not AGI of $250k or more. (note: I could be wrong on my interpretation of what he says) For purpose of discussion, we'll say I am understanding him correctly. In that case: The business owner I know has an annual tax return that shows an INCOME of just over $1 mil; however, after paying for all she must pay for in order to keep people employed and all the other things previously mentioned, her personal AGI amounts to just at or just under $100k. So, his "plan" would tax her to the point that she would have to close her doors, thus depriving 12 people (including her) of a job.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
Those people are technically small business owners.


How do you know? You think everyone with an income of $250k or more are small business owners? WHY would you think that? There are people who make that much on a good stock tip or a lucky trade. Professional gamblers make $250k a year look like chump change. Some people have enough in savings to earn that much in interest. How do YOU know that "those people are technically small business owners?" Are you privy to secret insider information that the rest of us are not?


Originally posted by nunyadammm
The TEA party says he wants to raise taxes on small business owners.


You know, until YOU explain to me WHAT the TEA Party believes or provide me with a link to a site that CLEARLY delineates their full disclosure of HOW they define a small business, you need to find another phrase upon which to fixate - this one has gotten stale.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
You repeat what the TEA party said.


PARROT much?! It's like I'm living "Groundhog Day," the movie with you. You repeat yourself. Ad nauseaum. It's as though if you accuse me of it enough times, it's somehow going to be true. Define it, prove your knowledge of it, source it or give it up.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
You both ignore the fact that what a real small business is, will not qualify for that tax hike anyway.


Prove it. You can't just rattle it and expect me or anyone else to take your word for it. Prove it. I just showed you otherwise thoughIhad the grace to acknowledge that *I* might be wrong in whether he bases his plan on INCOME or AGI.


Originally posted by nunyadammm
So why are you tossing TEA party talking points at me?


Again? Really? Now I believe you are just intentionally obfuscating. If you truly want discourse, answer my questions and provide what I've asked for. Otherwise, I'm not wasting another moment.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar


I explained why I cannot use the definition; the "definition" as stated in the Tax Code is not a "definition" - it is an ever changing, mutable code.


You are not making any sense. Why are you crying about the plight of the same fake small business man that the TEA party wants you to cry for? The rich guy who gets to call himself a small businessman. Why are you making their case for them?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunyadammm
You are not making any sense. Why are you crying about the plight of the same fake small business man that the TEA party wants you to cry for? The rich guy who gets to call himself a small businessman. Why are you making their case for them?


Until you learn to read for comprehension and respond appropriately (that includes defending your position, not accusing others, providing sources to back your "facts" and answering questions that have been asked of you) this is the LAST thing I'm going to say to you.

I'm going to give you a scenario and you're going to explain to me HOW this SMALL BUSINESSMAN is "rich" or "fake." I won't use our mythical plumber as he seems to upset you. I will use as an example a man who owns a carpet business.

Our hypothetical small business is one of selling and installing flooring. Our owner has a small warehouse/showroom; it's maybe 1,500 square feet, total. He employs about 9 or 10 people. He started his business with just himself and his oldest son. The man and his wife had saved up some money for his business and they sold their house for additional funds and, combining all the income they had, they opened for business. For a while, until the business was off the ground and running, his wife worked an outside job and they used the back office as their 'home.' But they worked hard and, after a few years, the business supported itself and provided an income; they grew enough business to begin hiring people and providing a few jobs in a small community. The wife quit her outside job and began running the administrative end of the business and doing some of the marketing. They were eventually able to buy an average home. In short, they were a success story of what happens when you have a dream

Prior to the Crash of '08, they were making out all right. The bills were paid, the employees were paid and they even managed to take home a decent living for themselves, say, $3,500 a month - not a high-on-the-hog living; just a decent one. Carpet layers and flooring installers are not cheap labor, so he's not paying minimum wage; he's paying the average wage in our scenario.

But the Crash of '08 DID happen and now times are tough. There are fewer people with expendable funds to buy new flooring. Inflation has gone up, thus so has the cost of materials - carpet, glue, tack strips, padding, linoleum, laminate, everything required to install a floor. The cost of office supplies has gone up. The employees need raises because it's costing more for them to live, too. Any money that comes in from whatever sales they're able to make has to go to employees and 'cost of doing business' expenses (office supplies, utilities, updated samples, etc.) Wife has had to find another outside job and husband is back to taking no income, just like when he started. Wife's salary manages to mostly cover the mortgage payment on their house (they're 2 months behind on that); and it covers their utilities and car insurance. Nothing left over for groceries and gas, so they've been putting that on the credit cards and paying "bits" against them any time there's even a little money that husband can take as a salary.

Times are NOT getting better. Sales are NOT going up; they're getting more infrequent. He has to let 2 of the guys go and he has a meeting with the other employees and tells them that he cannot give them any more raises for an indefinite amount of time.

THAT, dear fellow ATS member, is a VERY REAL scenario. It is happening all over this Country. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT *THAT* MAN AND THE THOUSANDS OF MEN AND WOMEN JUST LIKE HIM WHO OWN SMALL BUSINESSES ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY AND, BETWEEN THEM, EMPLOY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

Now, YOU tell me HOW you see that as a "rich" person. YOU tell me HOW that man differs from ABC Enterprises. YOU explain WHY you think those people are "fake." They are NOT fake. They live on your street, in your apartment building; they attend your Church, Synagogue, Temple or Mosque. You stand behind them in the line at the grocery store and sit next to them in traffic and buy gas as their convenience stores. They ARE the backbone of American business and they have been since the inception of this Country.

And if you cannot or will not answer that question with a reasonable degree of intelligence, then I will henceforth consider YOU to be nothing BUT a "talking point" because that is ALL you've done - TALK. You don't explain, you don't answer, you don't expand or expound, cite or source.

A no response or another accusation from you will be considered proof that you don't know split peas from applesauce about how business works or what a small business truly is. If you don't answer with genuine insight, then I will pronounce you a typical 'trust fund kid' who's never had to earn a living or support himself and who has NO clue about the real world.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
Until you learn to read for comprehension and respond appropriately (that includes defending your position, not accusing others, providing sources to back your "facts" and answering questions that have been asked of you) this is the LAST thing I'm going to say to you.



I am not sure where any of that has happened between us in this thread.
Kindly point out any questions I have failed to answer. I will answer them.
Kindly point out where I accused anyone of anything I cannot back up.

I thought we were having a fine discussion. There is just one point of contention and this is why you do not make any sense.

You want to use your definition of small businesses which apparently excludes those earning over $250,000 a year but unfortunately this topic is specifically about people earning that much with that designation. So according to your definition, this does not happen to small businesses anyway.
edit on 8-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


With all due respect sir, please visit the following.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then consider

7/29/12 with 210 posts certainly is quite familiar with how to post here. All posts have the same message and posted minutes apart.


www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 8-8-2012 by Henley because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join