If Bernie Sanders is president the amount in additional taxes I would pay equals a new Honda Civic

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ketsuko

If you are talking about a small business owner, their business and personal income are often not separate things. They may report a personal income that large, but what it translates to for purposes of what they and their family live on can often be as little as $50 or $60K/year.

Well, they're doing it wrong then aren't they.

If you are reporting something larger than what you're actually making because your business is actually making that extra money then my guess is that you should report it that way. Why would anyone report that they make $250,000 if they really only make $50,000 and their business is making the other $200,000???

They draw a salary like the employees.

Whatever is leftover goes back into the biz.

People that open a biz and pay themselves big money that the income can't support, will not be in biz long.

I've owned 3 restos and my wife had a fashion boutique, sometimes you have to take only enough for personal expenses
if that.

Pay the employee's first and the bills, then you see what's left over for next month.

6 months to a year of operating costs in the bank is a good thing.

Only an idiot would spend the built up capital.

a reply to: jkm1864

Hahaha You are speaking to the wind brother. This person does not support a family of three. I'm willing to bet this person doesn't even support themselves or at best supports them self. Oh and before You jump down My throat realize getting subsidized living is not supporting Yourself or another.

Aherm...excuse me. I can hear you.
This "person" raised two children to adulthood, put their father through college, and then went to graduate school herself. This person owns a home she bought as a single mom in 1999, and has NEVER, EVER MISSED A PAYMENT. This person is now married to a veteran with PTSD who is also an extremely talented IT guy who nets about $75,000. We have two cars and a motorcycle, all PAID FOR. We have no debt.

We don't get handouts, and we MAKE DO with what we have - we do just fine.

So, dry up. You and Team Ketsuko, all of you. Acting like jerks. Oh, and btw, my father (not my uncle) was an engineer and entrepreneur who hired locally, worked his ass off, paid his bills, paid off his home, raised 3 kids all while my mom stayed home...he invented the 8-Track back when....he has dozens of patents for other things as well.....

So just shut the hell up about me.
This person does NOT suffer fools well, and I'm tired of all the bullsh!t jerks like you keep yammering about.
So - how much was that bet????

PAY UP

I still don't understand how people believe more taxes = better society. The government is running huge deficits, pretty soon we will be in more debt than our entire economy produces.

It's obvious that over taxation has put a huge burden on the system. People need to get it through their head that NOTHING is free in life, and they shouldn't expect things to be given to them "for free".

The answer is to CUT SPENDING, re-distribute current tax revenue to where it really matters.. (not 30,000$ toilet seats or some useless study on the migration of rocks for a cool $10 million dollars) The government has been taking in record tax hauls since Obama came to office, and they still can't get spending under control.

When will people learn that bigger government will just continue to destroy society?

a reply to: Puppylove

I wasn't expecting anyone to bring that fact up.

With all of the write offs businesses enjoy over employees and consumers, business is nearly a criminal enterprise.

If it were not a law that business had to pay their employees, many simply would come up with arbitrary reasons not to.

And in many ways, they still manage to.

I know this from experience.

Tax Brackets and what you pay in total taxes are two completely different things. This whole no one under 250k will pay more taxes is such bull it is crazy It is trying to show that you will keep your current rate not current liability.

What his IRS Tax brackets does not include is the employee/business payroll tax he wants to add, which would mean there would be another Tax code, NOT rolling it up into the FED tax.

You will see a new Federal Tax Code. Once that is there, the Federal government then at anytime can adjust it. You folks truly are not seeing the big picture.

They are sliding in a new Federal Tax and you are cheering it on. THAT is the true definition of ignorance.

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't think anyone would argue that government would gain more control and we would have less money if Bernie came into power.

Those that argue for Bernie will just say that we gain so much by our loss of our own money, with government goodies like free college and free VA healthcare for everyone.

a reply to: 727Sky

I'm not against your point of view regarding this issue of people gaming the system so much, but something people seldom recognize is those who complain about it.

Those who complain about others gaming the system are so lost and uninformed of how the system actually works that they really do nothing more than raise completely invalid issues and cause a lot of arguments over all the wrong things.

People need to consider how money (debt) is created before they can understand who is paying whose way.

The ONLY way welfare abusers effect taxpayers in any way, is by the reduction of the value of the money (increase of debt) in the system.

People on welfare, gaming the system or not, don't come anywhere near the amount of debt generated that debt which floats the system (yes, just like bad checks) the system compared to businesses and corporations.

The banking system is the entire problem.

And I do believe that Sanders fella was talking about auditing the Federal Reserve, wasn't he?.

Another issue is that if one wishes to be a member of society, they contribute to that society. Contributing to the society one is a member of is not building the biggest mansion on the block, but building that mansion and contributing some of the unneeded excess wealth to keep people from having to live in a cardboard box in an alleyway. Not giving money away so people can live off of others for nothing, but providing and preserving options and opportunity for those who may want to contribute more.

There will always be some who desire not to contribute. That's just the way it is.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree but...there is no free lunch. This is a great response to 'free'.

“There's no such thing as free education,” says Donald Trump.

The GOP front-runner discussed the rising cost of college at a special Wisconsin town hall moderated by Greta Van Susteren, saying that “the first question I always get is student debt." Trump was asked the question by a doctoral student and Badger State voter, who said that “several other candidates have come out with their plans for lowering or even free education at the public university level.”

“There’s no such thing as free education, because you know that ultimately somebody else is going to be paying for that education. The taxpayers,” replied Trump.

“I can't believe I'm saying this as a politician … I'd love to say free education, but again, if somebody gets free education, all of the people paying, their rates are going to go up,” he explained. “I watch Bernie and … if everything was paid in taxes, they made nothing, you wouldn't be able to pay for it. So it's just words, OK? It's just words.”

a reply to: matafuchs

Just look at the entire medical industry if Bernie got his way.

He'd be "controlling the means of production" by creating an environment where every aspect of healthcare would be affected. From salaries to care to staffing to equipment.

a reply to: matafuchs

No, there isn't any free lunch.

Except if one is born into wealth as Trump was.

I don't understand how someone who was born into what amounts to a "hurdle free or very reduced hurdle" life would be used as an example to work from for those who are not born into wealthy families.

Programs that benefit society are repaid by the people who can afford to contribute after they get an free or affordable education, not by indebting people to a wage slave type existence to pay back loans for education.

Programs that benefit the most people generally operate at a loss, like public transportation, to observe gains later on by making it possible for people to go to work and give back what they have drawn from the system, even if they cannot afford personal transportation.

I have worked all over the country and noticed that in places where there was no public transportation, the poor tend to be much poorer, and it isn't because they are too lazy to work, but they have no way to get to work.

Trump is not a good example.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

If I made 250,000 I'd be fine being taxed 150,000 if it was going towards making things better for everyone. Why? Because 100,000 thousand a year is way more than I need to live happily, well fed, and brand new everything I care about whenever I need it, and could still save up for an early retirement. Really how much do people need?

I'm sorry that some people are so greedy they feel they need excessive wealth, but I have no pity for them because nothing would ever be enough and anyone who feels they need it would happily put everyone else in the gutter to get it.

I wish there was a forum called, stupidest ATS responses of all time. I would love to see where this ranks -

a reply to: DBCowboy

The healthcare industry doesn't so much produce anything but a whole lot of waste anyway.

Maybe the means of production should be controlled through eugenics.

Would that suit you better?.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: matafuchs

No, there isn't any free lunch.

Except if one is born into wealth as Trump was.

I don't understand how someone who was born into what amounts to a "hurdle free or very reduced hurdle" life would be used as an example to work from for those who are not born into wealthy families.

Programs that benefit society are repaid by the people who can afford to contribute after they get an free or affordable education, not by indebting people to a wage slave type existence to pay back loans for education.

Programs that benefit the most people generally operate at a loss, like public transportation, to observe gains later on by making it possible for people to go to work and give back what they have drawn from the system, even if they cannot afford personal transportation.

I have worked all over the country and noticed that in places where there was no public transportation, the poor tend to be much poorer, and it isn't because they are too lazy to work, but they have no way to get to work.

Trump is not a good example.

I don't begrudge people who are born with advantages. Life is not fair. I hope I can pass on some advantages to my son. This is why people work hard. With that said, instead of Trump just chilling on a beach, he got his education and chose to turn $2 million into billions. He's also failed spectacularly doing so on multiple occasions. People like those who take risks and those who get back up after being knocked down.

The people complaining about Trump have nothing to say about rich liberals who get handed fortunes and do absolutely nothing with it. At least Trump actually created businesses and jobs with his money. Kennedy's? You really think Chelsea Clinton is going to be working?

a reply to: matafuchs

but, there's always been free education, it's called grants and scholarships. they've been offered to the poor students since well, the 70's if not before, and it didn't seem to be causing that much inflation. but well, some just can't stand the idea of providing free anything to the poor and well, I do believe that they have pulled back the grants quite a bit, pushing the people towards the loans instead....

ya loans, ya know those things that the banks can slice and dice, package together, and well, and sell. there's a limit on the amount the gov't will give away in grants.. but if there a limit on just how much the gov't will back for a student in student loans?? the banks aren't gonna be worrying too much if the loan gets paid back, after all they are sliced and diced, rated grade aaa, since they are backed by the gov't, packaged up and sold off to the investors.. so now we got campus dorms that resemble luxury hotels than any dorm that was in the college I went to, and serve gourmet meals in their cafeterias.

the problem isn't so much that the free money isn't free, but rather that the borrowed money not only isn't free and has to be repaid, but is also being used in an unregulated market. which by the way, the richest of us are more likely to sink their money into that market than they are to create any jobs! and well, it's we the people who get to bail the economy out to ensure those rich suckers don't lose their shirts if that market goes south.

free isn't free, but those loans could end up costing us our lifelong savings in the end, even if we never borrowed a cent in all our lives!

a reply to: dawnstar

I am not against helping those who need it. I would not agree with anyone who does not want to help. But running on a platform of free school and healthcare is ridiculous.

There is currently 10k spent on heatlh care per person in the country. 3.2 trillion dollars in 'spending', not treatment.

www.forbes.com...

You also forget about the 2.3% Medical Device tax slipped in with Obamacare. If that stays who pays that? What Obamacare created was the CDHP plan which is high-deductible straight to consumer. It is costing us more already.

What about the subsidies built into ACA Coming due to bail out the states? Who will pay for that Bern???

a reply to: matafuchs

obamacare is not free healthcare!! it is subsidies for health insurance, which even after you get it, well, you still probably won't get any benefit from it because the deductibles are so danged high!! it was just another gift to corporations, this time insurance companies, wrapped up in pretty packaging so that the taxpayers might buy it.
I'm not really a bernie fan, but I think I read somewhere that he wants to scrape obamacare (it really does need to be scrapped) and go with a single payer, gov't system if I am understanding right.

if I am understanding it right, well, ya, we'd all be taxed more probably, but guess what, I've had all kinds of taxes and fees over my life get raised to fund medicaid... while being left out of the healthcare system all together because we were in that little crack where we made too much money to be eligible for anything, but well.... not enough to afford to live, I am now disabled, and I just can't seem to think that maybe, just maybe, if I had been able to afford the care that I needed when I needed it, maybe just maybe I would be still on the print floor working and earning instead of trying to live on a little over $700 a month and guess what.... most of last year I wasn't even eligible for that disability check because well, I didn't have doctors to back up my claim and was initially told that I would need that. and even with 0 income, I still wasn't eligible for medicaid!!! so, well, what can I say.... paying a little bit more in taxes for a healthcare system that covers everyone with healthcare is far better than paying more in taxes so that other can get served while you sit and watch you ability to walk fade away and be told tough luck!!!

free isn't free, but well, what we had before was unjust as all hell, and obamacare is just a slap in the face for many....
we can't afford the healthcare system we have..... period!! and it's not the healthcare we can't afford, it's the constant increases and bonuses that are paid out to the middlemen and managers of that system! and, I don't think that the gov't would be paying them as much if they were controlling the situation!

Free Healthcare and Education, what do you think we are Europeans?

Look at the Panama papers, the rich have other things to do with our money*!

*The money they were supposed to pay in taxes!

Tax the rich,

they won't go hungry!

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Funny you bring up the Panama Papers. Since most have come from socialist countries.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

Tax the rich,

they won't go hungry!

But they might go crazy and go deeper underground.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Funny you bring up the Panama Papers. Since most have come from socialist countries.

Ironic isn't it? So blinded by their own ideology, they can't see when they are getting screwed over. Some of the biggest wealth inequities are in supposedly socialist utopias where there are the political elites who don't have to share in the equal misery of the lower classes.