Posted on 02/07/2008 7:32:05 PM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
If you don't have a tax liability, you don't get any money from it.
Hiring an employee presents a lot of issues:
1) Mandatory workers comp insurance
2) Mandatory filing of numerous forms
3) Mandatory matching deductions/taxes/contributions
4) Exposure to liability for employee’s actions, claims, etc
As a small business owner, the taxing of my income results in fewer jobs on the market. If I could use the $30,000 to hire someone instead of paying it to the fed (which they use 70% of it at least to redistribute for entitlement spending and debt), I would hire someone tomorrow.
What does our country and economy more good?
Taking $30,000 from me?
Or me providing a $2,500.00/month job for someone?
immoral? you guys are nuts.
Ya know you shouldn’t have to even say any of this anyway. I don’t care if you’re making $100k or $100 Million. The principle is the same. Government taking X of your money, blowing some amount W (for waste) on themselves, and now giving Y back to someone who didn’t pay X.
I mean... it’s institutionalized THEFT!
Looters, and Moochers. Atlas Shrugged. Nothing more nothing less.
Well you won’t get an argument from me. I think for each 25000 a year you pay in taxes you should get one welfare person to come do work around your house/for you. I think it’s fair, heck it’s more than a min wage. Even pay off the bureocrat that sends them out to ya....
Anyway CA is the worst state to hire someone. I simply wouldn’t do it. Actually, anyone ever works for me it’s as a contractor. I’m CERTAINLY NOT assuming any of the said liability, to the employee or the state. Who the hell has time to file forms and worry about greedy employee suing because he figured out you got a contract for X ? No thanks. I’ve got software to write and clients to keep running. Don’t like me paying you ? See ya later. Subcontractors only.
And the 5 that pay for everybody else are the ones who built the restaurant, grilled the burgers and served them to the 95. And when the 5 who are the ones paying say it's unfair, they are called greedy for wanting to "steal" Big Macs from hungry seniors.
And the 5 that pay for everybody else are the ones who built the restaurant, grilled the burgers and served them to the 95. And when the 5 who are the ones paying say it's unfair, they are called greedy for wanting to "steal" Big Macs from hungry seniors.
But that would defeat the purpose of redistribution.
Hi Tempest. I like your tag, Christian first.
I think it is immoral to (a) force me to pay taxes, then (b) take the money I pay and simply give it to someone else, with arbitrary, discriminatory and dishonest classifications.
If I took your money, and gave it to someone else of my choosing, without your consent, it would be called stealing.
Anyways, that’s why I think its immoral.
We live in a capitalist society. Sometimes you have to buy equipment to make a more efficient living. In your case the "equipment" is a BA and JD. You amortize your investment over a period of time. If your "equipment" is appropriate, you will get a good return on investment. Your professional fees need to include a portion to amortize your investment.
Borrow $150 billion from the chicoms so we can buy $150 billion in stuff from the chicoms, to help our economy. What’s wrong with that, works for me. If I get my share, will add a new depth sounder to the boat, allow the kids to worry about how to pay it off. /sarcasm ...
I am going through the same gig. I am finishing up my JD, have six figures of student loans, and am waiting for the government to ask me to grab my ankles to pay taxes.
Although, I still do have the pleasure of going to class and listening to socialist professors professing the need for higher taxes on the rich.
I think that is great advice to live at home and save money. However, I am married and have a 6-month old little girl, and although my wife likes my parents, it would be a hard sell to get her to move in with them. :)
I watched some of the hearings where multiple economists were telling congress that this type of a "stimulus package" can be effective in limiting a recession if it is implemented very rapidly. Tax cuts will not cause the money to be spent as rapidly by as many people. Economists don't agree on a lot, but apparently they agree on this.
The reason why Bush and the Republicans are going along is not so much an effort to buy votes as it is real fear that the country is headed into the biggest recession in a very long time. That type of event would be blamed on everyone in power.
But the fact that this has been rushed through so rapidly probably means that the outlook for the economy is much worse than we are being told.
May I infer from this that you are married?
If so, the cut-off isn't 75K. It's 150K. Actually, I don't think that is quite accurate; that's where eligibility begins to phase out.
I don't know whether both husband and wife have to have some income to be eligible. Initially there was talk that each person would need 3K of income (not necessarily wages) but I don't know what ultimately became of that.
If we’re going to spend the money, I’d much rather see the money go to military service people and their families as a bonus or enhances benefits package.
I hear ya, Bronco. I also worked my ass off last year and if they set the limit to 90k I’ll be participating in the ‘08 Wealth Redistribution Program too. It’s such bullshit I try not to think about it.
“If we’re going to spend the money, I’d much rather see the money go to military service people and their families as a bonus or enhances benefits package.”
Amen!
Especially when you consider that so many of the people getting these “free” checks don’t even pay income tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.