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.

 

Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

page: 16
72
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.


Read more: www.businessinsider.com...


I'm for one sick of the above reply's load OF HS!!!! Read something and learn something people...this lays it all out in plain english (for those too dumb to understand).
edit on 8-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: bracket for link

edit on 8-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: clarifying


Misleading ....

Note that in 1921 - $52,000 was taxed at 33%

Note that in 2011 - $174,000 was taxed at 33%

however, in 1921 the equivalent of $52,000 to today's dollar is $646,340!!

So that means that people are being taxed at 33% while making less than they did in the 1921 33% tax bracket.

The top bracket in 1921 of 73% was for 1,000,000 dollars a year in today's dollar that is $12,429,620 a year.

Granted the top income earners payed more in 1921 as the cap is 35% now but you people want to act like people who make $200,000 a year is somehow the same as someone who makes $12,000,000? seriously?




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Obviously you didn't read the article, I know it's big and uses some big words but they cover all those angles...and prove it's a load of horse poo.


I read the article, it did not address any of the point I made, and totally neglected the issue of cause and effect. Remember that correlation does not equal causeation.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sissel

Originally posted by ararisq
I work for a company that has been on a hiring spree all year, adding 50+ jobs this year alone. Today, I got the call that my staff is being cut by over 75%. I have no idea how we'll be able to deliver our work next year, it just seems impossible.

I've heard some other anecdotal evidence that people are losing their jobs all across the company as businesses allocate what used to be salary to future taxes.



First of all, before you push the panic button, what type of business are you in?

If you got a call, surely something will be followed via an inter office memo at the least. Or otherwise, somebody was 'yankin your chain.


I handle the budgets for my company (or at least the Pcafic West, Mountain west and Mid West markets) and we are expecting a 20% increase in our tax liabilities in very near future. No one knows the exact figure as people still do not know all the in's and out's of Obama care.

We currently run a 12% profit margin. We either need to figure how to streamline (more automation means layoffs), raise our rates to our clients or merely shut the doors. There are 2 other vendors we deal with on a regular basis that we know are slated to file chapter 13 by years end and more then likely layoff 50% of their labor force as they prepare for an even weaker economy than the last 4 years.

And regarding inflation, QE3 is pumping 40 BILLION dollars into the market. Eventually this debt has to be monetized and with the amount of dollars out there, there is a REAL danger of hyper inflation. Can anyone say Wiemar Republic. And no, it's not fear mongering, it's fiscal reality.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
I know people who are self employed whose businesses aren't doing well at all and haven't since 2008. Obama's "you didn't build that" statement along with other rhetoric haven't instilled any confidence in them that Obama really wants to help and support small businesses.

I know several who have waited until after the election to decide what to do with their businesses. I tell you they are worried about spending more money to try expand in this environment. Some are considering just throwing in the towel. One specifically told me he will not work to give up more than 60% of his income to the government he would rather just retire - close his business and be done with it.

These guys aren't fortune 500 or 1000 companies. They are small time people who would be considered wealthy and successful by most. They don't feel the government is entitled to more than half of everything they work for. Wouldn't you agree that they should be able to keep most of what they earned? Why should they be obligated to work for the government?

Who is John Galt?
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I have friends who are small business owners and are extremely happy that they will be getting tax credits of 35% of what they contribute to employees' health insurance. The healthcare bill quite literally REDUCES their tax burden. If a business was previously not offering health coverage and now will be, yes, it increases their costs, but for those who already were (most), it LOWERS their costs. How anyone believes that lowering small businesses tax burden equates to increasing their tax burden is simply mind-boggling. Thank goodness these people own businesses, because I can't imagine them being hired for any job.

If someone gives me $100, I don't look them in the eye and say, "how dare you take money from me." that's what these people are doing. (not counting the people who currently don't offer health insurance - for them, it sucks, but then, so do jobs which don't offer health insurance usually.)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninjamikec
reply to post by ararisq
 


scare tactics, if they do layoff people then spread the word for people not to buy their product. if i ever hear someone got layed off from a job i would never support their product ever, and i think most americans would do the same
I tend to disagree with you. I'm a small business owner and may be forced to do the same. As a business owner you have to account in for these higher taxes coming your way. It will get harder to justify having more employees for your business when inflation itself eats so far into your profit that it's not worth having the business (not to mention increased taxes on top of it). Small business owners are scared, and for good reason.

It also makes me sick to know the extra taxes will go for more wars overseas.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by MegaMind
I know people who are self employed whose businesses aren't doing well at all and haven't since 2008. Obama's "you didn't build that" statement along with other rhetoric haven't instilled any confidence in them that Obama really wants to help and support small businesses.

I know several who have waited until after the election to decide what to do with their businesses. I tell you they are worried about spending more money to try expand in this environment. Some are considering just throwing in the towel. One specifically told me he will not work to give up more than 60% of his income to the government he would rather just retire - close his business and be done with it.

These guys aren't fortune 500 or 1000 companies. They are small time people who would be considered wealthy and successful by most. They don't feel the government is entitled to more than half of everything they work for. Wouldn't you agree that they should be able to keep most of what they earned? Why should they be obligated to work for the government?

Who is John Galt?
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I have friends who are small business owners and are extremely happy that they will be getting tax credits of 35% of what they contribute to employees' health insurance. The healthcare bill quite literally REDUCES their tax burden. If a business was previously not offering health coverage and now will be, yes, it increases their costs, but for those who already were (most), it LOWERS their costs. How anyone believes that lowering small businesses tax burden equates to increasing their tax burden is simply mind-boggling. Thank goodness these people own businesses, because I can't imagine them being hired for any job.

If someone gives me $100, I don't look them in the eye and say, "how dare you take money from me." that's what these people are doing. (not counting the people who currently don't offer health insurance - for them, it sucks, but then, so do jobs which don't offer health insurance usually.)


And how do you suppose all this government free money was created? hmmm?

Through individual taxes maybe? The national debt?

You think?

And who pays those taxes? The business owners I just referred to? Will their tax rates be increased to pay down that debt?

Yeah its FREE money ... Yippeee!!!

If someone reaches in my back pocket and takes my wallet but gives me back a twenty out of the 200 bucks that was in there I'd be mad as hell!!




no wonder Obama got re-elected ...

-------------

I hear Costa Rica has a little contingent of Americans down there that are doing really well ...
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I think i see the problem. When i went to school we did not have calculators. We had to actually understand math. Today our society does not understand math. National healthcare costs employers a lot of money, Almost tripling the tax business pays costs them money. Gas prices going up costs them money. Of course they will lay people off. It's that or move to a better business environment. Be thankful they are just laying off. They could move out of the country.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Bearack
 


Is a big problem with the failed bailouts call the Q's, already Wall Street banksters wants a Q4, meaning that the money mobsters can not be satisfied, once the line of credit and free tax payers money is open the well is bottomless the money mobsters will feed and feed and feed until is no more to feed with.

The Q's are the way the Fed is feeding them while printing more money or at least that is how they get to create the fake wealth in Wall Street right now.

The biggest danger to America is not the falling of our government but the fall of Wall Street.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Can any of you start naming large businesses laying off as of today? Boeing is one of them, 30% layoffs of management jobs in their defence division.

Any others?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
OK, I am going to try this again.

WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHETHER OBAMA WAS REELECTED OR ROMNEY WAS ELECTED IN RELATION TO "OBAMACARE"?

The president cannot repeal laws, congress makes and can repeal laws. The power balance is the same in congress now as it was before the election. A bid for appeal would have no chance to get past the Senate. There is no way an repeal of "Obamacare" would even seen the light of day in the oval office, regardless of who is sitting there.

Do some of you just honestly swallow and regurgitate whatever is presented to you without even considering the most "basic" processes of our government?

Do I dare present the fact that CONGRESS makes the budget (this includes taxes kiddies)? While the President has veto powers, ultimately congress makes the budget.

All this crap about business having to lay-off due to who is sitting in the oval office is a complete sham. Blaming the President for their bad business decisions, even though the President does not have the power to change the very thing they are complaining about.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Just type for the top defense contractors in the Nation Boeing is just one of them, Lockheed Martin, URS, ect, you will find them. Is a list of them, just remember that US is the number one employer in the US and their Defense budget is where this contractors falls under.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I am wondering how the situation would be any different with Romney, most are saying Obamacare is their downfall but regardless of who got elected some form of "state or government regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage" is coming like it or not. Although what I believe may not be the popular view, I believe it is an employers responsibility to provide insurance to an employee and retirement.

If Romney were elected how would Romneycare be any different than Obamacare? Sure, Romneycare covered everyone in Massachusetts and they did not raise taxes to cover it, he turned to the federal government to cover the cost of Romneycare.

Romneycare and Obamacare are pretty much the same, Just because Romney said he would eliminate Obamacare does not mean he would not implement Romneycare, the only thing that would change would be the fine print and the money to pay for it would still, most likely come from the same sources.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

Boeing announces layoffs

Boeing and other top weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon have focused heavily on cutting costs and drumming up foreign sales to maintain profits as they prepare for a sustained period of weaker defense budgets.


This is the start of the defense complex shedding it's payroll that Obama asked them to hold off until after the elections. Nope, no collusion between Government and privet enterprise here...

I am really sick of the joke that is our "freest country in the world"



edit on 8/11/12 by sirric because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I don't know about anybody else here but I for one think cutting the defense budget down to the bones is something of a good thing, no? This may mean the war machine won't be chugging along at fullspeed anymore...that to me is a good thing because wth do we need to police the other nations for? We need defense most of these budgets pay for wars we didn't ask for, all we need to know is we're safe on our land WTH cares about some people in the desert of Africa, and why should it be us, let the UN handle it, it's THIER JOB anyway!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tazkven
I am wondering how the situation would be any different with Romney, most are saying Obamacare is their downfall but regardless of who got elected some form of "state or government regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage" is coming like it or not. Although what I believe may not be the popular view, I believe it is an employers responsibility to provide insurance to an employee and retirement.

If Romney were elected how would Romneycare be any different than Obamacare? Sure, Romneycare covered everyone in Massachusetts and they did not raise taxes to cover it, he turned to the federal government to cover the cost of Romneycare.

Romneycare and Obamacare are pretty much the same, Just because Romney said he would eliminate Obamacare does not mean he would not implement Romneycare, the only thing that would change would be the fine print and the money to pay for it would still, most likely come from the same sources.


It used to be that healthcare was affordable and it used to be that people bought their own health insurance. Employers started to offer "benefits" such as health insurance during WWII because there was a shortage of employees so companies started adding "benefits" to the salary as a way to attract employees in a competitive market.

Tying healthcare to an employer was always a bad idea I thought. Even worse is tying it to government. Government is the most thoroughly inefficient way to do anything. Besides, a government's number one goal is to become bigger and make people more dependent on it - in that it and only that is government hugely successful.

This will ultimately mean that bureaucrats will have even more control over your life. I know where all this is headed but I'm not going to go into all that right now.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions ...

-------------

Many of you make all kinds of assumptions because you can't see past the left / right paradigm.

Romney was no better. I cannot even see where BIG government and BIG business start and end.

You think Obama will save you from EVIL corporations?


You think BIG corporations are the free market?


Simply put ... we are screwed!
edit on 8-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Well, we all know that anecdotal evidence is what drives demand and the global economy.

If your boss is seriously laying people off due to anecdotal evidence, he does not deserve employees who work for him/her. That person deserves a little more education and a vacation off of BS Mountain.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


If your company is laying off employees because Obama won, and that's the sole reason they're giving you, then you have no one to be angry at but the *****y company you work for, and it's board of director's/ceo/supervisors/etc..



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


70 laid off from glass plant

There are other layoffs here that didn't make the news, but I'll see if I can find something.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Thescripter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I don't know about anybody else here but I for one think cutting the defense budget down to the bones is something of a good thing, no? This may mean the war machine won't be chugging along at fullspeed anymore...that to me is a good thing because wth do we need to police the other nations for? We need defense most of these budgets pay for wars we didn't ask for, all we need to know is we're safe on our land WTH cares about some people in the desert of Africa, and why should it be us, let the UN handle it, it's THIER JOB anyway!


I for one agree with you. We should not be the world's police. If there is another Bosnia type conflict, NATO should take care of it, not us. South Korea and Japan can afford to take care of their own defense. The only thing I would disagree with is "the bare bones." We don't want to cut so far back as to be too weak. If you look at some of the major wars in the 20th Century, they happened after we cut our defense to the bare bones. We still need enough of a capability to act as a deterrent.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Tazkven
 


You forgot the most important clause of the Obamacare the one that the Supreme court order to be reworded into a tax, the famous Mandate this will change the mandate to tax, but the problem with tax is that is not just one tax, but several taxes that will be included in the Obamacare.

This will make the whole Obamacare the biggest tax increase in the history of the US.

Romney care is bankrupting the state but because Obamacare was modeled to Romney care the Fed bailed out the state of Massachusetts in order to avoid a failure to his then bill in the making.

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare

Obamacare will tax everyone, even those earning under $250,000 a year.


Read more: atr.org...

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

abcnews.go.com...

Romney biggest blunder was his Romeny care that has not delivery the affordable plan he was hoping for but is the biggest burden in his own state to their state budget in other words it can not support itself without federal bailouts, now do this at a bigger scale as the entire US states and we will be heading for the biggest failure on top of the economic mess we are right now.

This will affect small businesses as they are the ones that will be targeted with more taxes and expenses to provide care for employees.

If the nation keeps incresing the unemployment rates with massive major companies lay offs who is going to pay for the expenses of managing such a big healthcare reform? less empoyment means less taxable income

Already the Fed is printing money for the banksters at a tune of 40 billion a month since July, they are priority you know




top topics



 
72
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join