Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[Hooked on Huskers]

But guys he did spend the Soviets into oblivion.

...and a kindergarten kid did too if selected for president. Sorry Ronald, no credit, just lucked out.

 

Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, future boy, who's President of the United States in 1985?

Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan.

Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor?

[chuckles in disbelief]

Dr. Emmett Brown: Then who's vice president? Jerry Lewis?

[rushing out and down a hill toward his laboratory]

Dr. Emmett Brown: I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!

Marty McFly: [following Doc] Whoa. Wait, Doc!

Dr. Emmett Brown: And Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury.

[HUSKER 37]

So far..I'm still glad I didn't cave and get health insurance through work..

 

I've heard so many complaints about the insurance company from co-workers already posted in previous posts to this thread, but I just found out that that company was being so hard to deal with that my company had to get a separate policy somewhere else for the president of the company to help prolong his life...He's trying to deal with Lou Gehrig's Disease...Wonder what would happen if one of the rest of us got that sick...

[StPaulHusker]

The problem with a "straight" tax is the highly disproportionate impact on disposable income. No matter the rate you set, it will have a far higher negative impact on the poor and middle class in terms of what they have to spend beyond absolute essentials and necessities of life. When this country has had sustained economic gains or surpluses, the result was due to increasing discretionary spending on the poor and middle class. The wealthy, under either a higher tax rate or poor economic conditions, aren't really impacted; they still have considerable discretionary income. Of course, because they do, they also are less inclined to spend on discretionary goods - they already have them. That's why tax cuts for the wealthy have always failed to have any real positive impact on the economy. However, give those to the middle class and the poor and they immediately spend it, driving up demand, and thereby jobs - the money goes back into the economy. This is even more evident in today's climate - take a look at the rate of taxes paid by the wealthy over the last 50 years or so. It is the lowest it's been over that period. Under the logic of "remove the tax burden on the wealthy and it will create jobs", there should be a SURPLUS of jobs out there - and there isn't. Nor has any version of that trickle-down theory ever produced such gains. An examination of Reagan's time in office is particularly illustrative; he cut taxes on the wealthy, and the economy tanked. Trickle down failure. He finally equalized the tax breaks somewhat, and the economy improved.

 

To spur the economy, you have to stimulate demand. You can cut taxes on the wealthy and it won't increase job creation because the wealthy won't start increasing production - and thus increase jobs - absent any demand. Demand doesn't come through more disposable income to the wealthy - it comes when the poor and the middle class get some additional discretionary income and feel they can afford to buy that new car or large-screen TV. A straight tax rate sounds appealing due to its simplicity, but its impact will actually harm the economy, not improve it.

Does raising the taxes on the wealthy increase job creation or production. Also, define wealthy. In personal dollars made per year.

[AR Husker Fan]

By themselves, no. When coupled with tax breaks for the poor and middle class, yes, as I explained.

 

The term "wealthy" generally refer to those with incomes at or above $250,000.00 per year, although some economists lower that to $100,000.00 per year.

[StPaulHusker]

By themselves, no. When coupled with tax breaks for the poor and middle class, yes, as I explained.

 

The term "wealthy" generally refer to those with incomes at or above $250,000.00 per year, although some economists lower that to $100,000.00 per year.

Thanks for clarifying. I figured that was where you were.

 

Here is the problem with this situation. I am a small business owner and I make a nice salary and I employ 12 other people. My business is run as an S-Corp. So that means that I get the profits the company makes and it is taxed but I turn it right back to the company for operating expenses. The company now owes me a note payable based on the profits from the year.

 

If my company turns a profit that puts me in that "wealthy" category, all it does is makes me pay more in taxes and gives me less money to operate my business. I may have EARNED that much, but I didn't MAKE that much. Taxing me more and more because I (by way of my company) made good money in a year keeps me from hiring more people or buying better equipment because I have less to use.

 

It's just another way of looking at things. I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

[carlfense]

I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

The term wealthy is definitely subjective. The interesting part is how hard it is to find someone who is willing to call themselves wealthy.

[StPaulHusker]

I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

The term wealthy is definitely subjective. The interesting part is how hard it is to find someone who is willing to call themselves wealthy.

You're probably right. It's a perceived wealthy. Someone who MAKES $250k per year is wealthier than someone who EARNED $250k

[BigRedBuster]

Wealthy is a dirty word anymore in America. It's a little like Liberals now want to be called "progressive" because the other side did a good job of making the word "liberal" a negative.

[carlfense]

I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

The term wealthy is definitely subjective. The interesting part is how hard it is to find someone who is willing to call themselves wealthy.

You're probably right. It's a perceived wealthy. Someone who MAKES $250k per year is wealthier than someone who EARNED $250k

I was thinking more along the lines of how we all contextualize our income through comparisons to peers and/or neighbors.

 

e.g. an internist who earns $200,000 doesn't think that he/she earns much money because they go to dinner parties with radiologists who take home twice that amount.

 

I'm not rich. That guy is rich!

[Junior]

Wealthy is a dirty word anymore in America.

 

I don't really agree with that. It's what a lot of people on the right are trying to get everyone to think... Class warfare and all that garbage. But I don't agree that it is true.

[BigRedBuster]

Wealthy is a dirty word anymore in America.

 

I don't really agree with that. It's what a lot of people on the right are trying to get everyone to think... Class warfare and all that garbage. But I don't agree that it is true.

 

 

I'm not surprised you don't agree.

[StPaulHusker]

I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

The term wealthy is definitely subjective. The interesting part is how hard it is to find someone who is willing to call themselves wealthy.

You're probably right. It's a perceived wealthy. Someone who MAKES $250k per year is wealthier than someone who EARNED $250k

I was thinking more along the lines of how we all contextualize our income through comparisons to peers and/or neighbors.

 

e.g. an internist who earns $200,000 doesn't think that he/she earns much money because they go to dinner parties with radiologists who take home twice that amount.

 

I'm not rich. That guy is rich!

No doubt. But that is someone comparing themselves against someone who actually makes more than them.

 

In my situation, If I make a salary of $50k and the company grosses me $200k in profits that are actually a retained earning that helps the company operate, that is not the same as someone who makes $250k per year in salary.

 

Taxing me more hurts my small business whereas, by reading earlier posts, taxing the other person more would help the economy and small business.

[Junior]

Wealthy is a dirty word anymore in America.

 

I don't really agree with that. It's what a lot of people on the right are trying to get everyone to think... Class warfare and all that garbage. But I don't agree that it is true.

 

 

I'm not surprised you don't agree.

 

I don't think people resent "wealthy" individuals. They resent wealthy individuals who continue to accumulate wealth by means of damaging the rest of the citizens. CEO bonuses when companies are going bankrupt and/or cutting jobs, cutting taxes for the rich so they can stash more money in overseas accounts while rolling back the social safety net that has helped the poor for decades, the destruction of campaign finance laws so that the wealthy can exert even more power over politicians and elections, etc. These are the trends people resent, not the fact that some people are richer than the rest of us.

[carlfense]

Here is the problem with this situation. I am a small business owner and I make a nice salary and I employ 12 other people. My business is run as an S-Corp. So that means that I get the profits the company makes and it is taxed but I turn it right back to the company for operating expenses. The company now owes me a note payable based on the profits from the year.

 

If my company turns a profit that puts me in that "wealthy" category, all it does is makes me pay more in taxes and gives me less money to operate my business. I may have EARNED that much, but I didn't MAKE that much. Taxing me more and more because I (by way of my company) made good money in a year keeps me from hiring more people or buying better equipment because I have less to use.

 

It's just another way of looking at things. I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

But you're avoiding double taxation by incorporating as an s-corp, right? That's kind of the double edged sword of your situation. Your personal tax liability would be different if you had incorporated as a c-corp . . . but then your business would owe separate taxes.

 

It kind of sounds like you want (not irrationally, I might add) the benefits of both.

 

 

 

Regarding the bold, I don't think that there will be many (or maybe any?) situations where your company turning more of a profit will result in you having less money to operate your business.

[StPaulHusker]

Here is the problem with this situation. I am a small business owner and I make a nice salary and I employ 12 other people. My business is run as an S-Corp. So that means that I get the profits the company makes and it is taxed but I turn it right back to the company for operating expenses. The company now owes me a note payable based on the profits from the year.

 

If my company turns a profit that puts me in that "wealthy" category, all it does is makes me pay more in taxes and gives me less money to operate my business. I may have EARNED that much, but I didn't MAKE that much. Taxing me more and more because I (by way of my company) made good money in a year keeps me from hiring more people or buying better equipment because I have less to use.

 

It's just another way of looking at things. I think term wealthy is subjective and people who earn $100-$250k should not be the base line.

But you're avoiding double taxation by incorporating as an s-corp, right? That's kind of the double edged sword of your situation. Your personal tax liability would be different if you had incorporated as a c-corp . . . but then your business would owe separate taxes.

 

It kind of sounds like you want (not irrationally, I might add) the benefits of both.

To a degree you a right. I am not sure if I am saying it correctly. My main fear is that the government would look at me as a "wealthy" 2% or whatever and increase my taxes to a point that it would reduce the amount of capital I have to operate and grow my business. When in fact my salary/take home is considerably less.

 

In theory I would get the money from the retained earning paid back to me but I can't just take it whenever I want. I need it to hire people, buy new equipment and stock, pay bonuses and raises, etc

 

I am confident we would survive it but it could hurt our potential for growth.