Tax our way to prosperity!

[BDashe 0]

...or not.

Very simple and concise article explaining the burden of government on businesses and the individual employee.

$$$ minus $$$$$ does not equal new employment opportunities.

http://www.businessinsider.com/it-costs-our-company-74000-to-pay-an-employee-44000-2010-8?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Falleyinsider%2Fsilicon_alley_insider+%28Silicon+Alley+Insider%29&utm_content=Google+International

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[rhaig 0]

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story.

well I was referring to the increase in the cost of employing someone (since that's what the article was referring to). Though I perhaps wasn't specific enough about that.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story.

well I was referring to the increase in the cost of employing someone (since that's what the article was referring to). Though I perhaps wasn't specific enough about that.

AH - yes I see that now. My Bad.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[scruffy 0]

how anyone can read that article and still say "the 16th amendment is A-OK with this guy" is beyond me.

I'm sure there's plenty of voices in this forum that can set me straight though.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[airdvr 210]

I think it's interesting that no one really wants to talk about the 'effective' tax rate. Most of us get a paycheck minus all of the taxes the feds ,state and local governments take out. Typically it leaves us about 65-70%. Then, when we purchase something we pay sales tax (at least here in Ohio). Typically 5.5 - 7%. Oh...I forgot about property taxes, excise taxes and the like. All paid with post tax dollars. The effective rates of taxation approaches 50% here in the heartland. I don't even want to think about what it's like on the coasts.

My point? Enough already! Start spending less...enact pay-go...balanced budget amendment.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story.

Yep. A cool $Trillion to kill a bunch of people in Iraq who were minding their own business, for example. $Billions on military hardware appropriate to the Cold War, etc., etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yep. A cool $Trillion to kill a bunch of people in Iraq who were minding their own business, for example.

No gross generalization there, no siree.

[hwt 0]

Now picture the same company having to compete with China . Its no wonder why Manufacturing is leaving America more and more each year.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...or not.

Very simple and concise article explaining the burden of government on businesses and the individual employee.

$$$ minus $$$$$ does not equal new employment opportunities.

http://www.businessinsider.com/it-costs-our-company-74000-to-pay-an-employee-44000-2010-8?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Falleyinsider%2Fsilicon_alley_insider+%28Silicon+Alley+Insider%29&utm_content=Google+International

Ok, your argument is against payroll taxes and then it morphs onto Obamcare; pick a topic.

So, tell us what you would do with the millions of those w/o HC or with horrible HC coverage:

- Nothing - fuck em

- Premium controls to ins cos

- Single payer

- Other ______________________

I won't get an answer, but it would be a nice change if I did. Tell us what to do with the millions of your beloved countrymen and women w/o any HC.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think the biggest problem is that part of that increase is going to be passed to the employee, thus giving them less spending power. And reducing domestic cashflow, and stifling any economic recovery that may be going on.

The biggest problem we have is unnecessary spending. End of story.

well I was referring to the increase in the cost of employing someone (since that's what the article was referring to). Though I perhaps wasn't specific enough about that.

Yea, it was a pathetic swipe at Obamacare from the backdoor of payroll taxes.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Yea, it was a pathetic swipe at Obamacare from the backdoor of payroll taxes.

well, I hadn't intended it that way, but you take it however you like.

I find no point in complaining about it at this point. There are plenty of folks doing more than enough of that already. I'd rather get on with my life. I suggest you do something similar. (Unless, that is, the exciting part of your life IS complaining about political issues that are already passed)

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

The effective rates of taxation approaches 50% here in the heartland. I don't even want to think about what it's like on the coasts.

The last time I read an analysis on that point, was about 18 years ago in KS (including KS income tax) and I believe the final effective tax rate was 51%. And the article mentioned that it didn't address how prices might fall if the businesses were taxed less, because it was difficult to estimate that change. (and they made their point already)

certainly spending less is a big first step.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Yea, it was a pathetic swipe at Obamacare from the backdoor of payroll taxes.

well, I hadn't intended it that way, but you take it however you like.

I find no point in complaining about it at this point. There are plenty of folks doing more than enough of that already. I'd rather get on with my life. I suggest you do something similar. (Unless, that is, the exciting part of your life IS complaining about political issues that are already passed)

My commentary is on the article and the OP for buying into it. This is not about payroll taxes, but merely another whine and cheese about Obamacare.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The effective rates of taxation approaches 50% here in the heartland. I don't even want to think about what it's like on the coasts.

The last time I read an analysis on that point, was about 18 years ago in KS (including KS income tax) and I believe the final effective tax rate was 51%. And the article mentioned that it didn't address how prices might fall if the businesses were taxed less, because it was difficult to estimate that change. (and they made their point already)

certainly spending less is a big first step.

I've posted my graph several times, no takers. When taxes are high, we enjoy our best times; taxes low things go to hell. Oh well, 100 years of history must be wrong.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The effective rates of taxation approaches 50% here in the heartland. I don't even want to think about what it's like on the coasts.

The last time I read an analysis on that point, was about 18 years ago in KS (including KS income tax) and I believe the final effective tax rate was 51%. And the article mentioned that it didn't address how prices might fall if the businesses were taxed less, because it was difficult to estimate that change. (and they made their point already)

certainly spending less is a big first step.

I've posted my graph several times, no takers. When taxes are high, we enjoy our best times; taxes low things go to hell. Oh well, 100 years of history must be wrong.

no history isn't wrong, just your interpritation of it.

[BDashe 0]

Hi Lucky-

sorry for a delayed response as I have been working my ass off at my job.

A. This is not intended to be a swipe at obamacare, though it certainly fits into the argument whenever O-care takes effect.

B. My point is there are ways to fund projects that help the people, other than finding new and creative ways to tax us. what happens in the private sector when things get tough? Cut backs. The private sector can not create laws to force buyers to pay them more. Basically, cut all the crap out, start with what is absolutely necessary and work from there. Where'd O's line by line analysis of the budget go? i think he just added a bunch more lines is all.

This is true for both sides, for example, the lovely bridge to no where in Alaska. It begins with responsibility and self sufficiency, and ends with lower taxes, more money in our pockets, and a stronger economy.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983