Question regarding Obamas tax plan

[tooge]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?

[triple]

What he wants to do is spread some of that wealth around

[penguinz]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?No one says you have to cut your employees compensation just because you are paying a few more bucks.

[triple]

No one says you have to cut your employees compensation just because you are paying a few more bucks.

just curious, do you work in the non-profit sector?

[penguinz]

just curious, do you work in the non-profit sector?
That has nothing to do with anything. You worded your question, probably intentionally, saying that if you HAVE to pay more then you HAVE to compensate less.

[triple]

That has nothing to do with anything. You worded your question, probably intentionally, saying that if you HAVE to pay more then you HAVE to compensate less.

Who do they work for?

Will investors on Wall Street (and elsewhere) be sympathetic to missed earnings, declines in profits, declines in returns, missed dividend payments, declining corporate credit ratings, and other such things? No. Wall street will kill them.

Executives/proprietors act on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders wish for their investments' value to be preserved and continue to grow. Executives will act to ensure that, and the money has got to come from somewhere.

[tooge]

No, I dont have to do anything but pay more. But damned if I am gonna take home less when I am the one that started the business. I bet that lots of business owners feel the same way and will tell the employees something like "sorry guys, but we are gonna have to freeze pay because the new administration (that you voted for) has made it more expensive to do business." I am serious here, there has to be more to it right? If your pay at home is less, do you not spend less? Same thing in business.

[penguinz]

If your pay at home is less, do you not spend less? Same thing in business.I look for ways to increase income. No reason a business can't do the same thing. If I lose income I don't go home and tell one of the kids that my income has declined so I am going to have to drop one or both of you.

[SHTSPRAYER]

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html

[penguinz]

Who do they work for?

Will investors on Wall Street (and elsewhere) be sympathetic to missed earnings, declines in profits, declines in returns, missed dividend payments, declining corporate credit ratings, and other such things? No. Wall street will kill them.

Executives/proprietors act on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders wish for their investments' value to be preserved and continue to grow. Executives will act to ensure that, and the money has got to come from somewhere.And one of the reasons we are in this economic mess is because Wall Street over valued many companies.

[Dave Lane]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?

The marginal increase is ballpark 3% on income above $250,000 so $7,500. Shouldn't be that hard to make up or radically change any plans in the Company.

Dave

[penguinz]

The marginal increase is ballpark 3% on income above $250,000 so $7,500. Shouldn't be that hard to make up or radically change any plans in the Company.

DaveBut He can't afford to lose 7500 so he will have to fire at least 4 employees.

[J Diddy]

But He can't afford to lose 7500 so he will have to fire at least 4 employees.


it's 140 a week

if 4 guys only make a combined 140 a week you have enough staff as it is

[BigChiefFan]

If you're making over a quarter of a million dollars plus a year, you should be doing just fine in the first place. The middle class have been footing the bill while the wealthy find loopholes. Welcome to our world.

[BigRedChief]

That 500K is your gross income? If so you seem to be doing just fine and if you have to pay $100 a month more in taxes I'm not going to feel sorry for ya.

BTW, Congrats :clap: you are in the top 2% of small business's in America.

but I know your business so you will be able to write off as lot of that income as business expenses and bring down your taxable income.

[SHTSPRAYER]

If you're making over a quarter of a million dollars plus a year, you should be doing just fine in the first place. The middle class have been footing the bill while the wealthy find loopholes. Welcome to our world.

And then you have the bottom 30% who pay no taxes at all.

[RJ]

tooge, the company's tax return at the end of the year shows a net profit of 500K?

[SHTSPRAYER]

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think B.O. isn't raising everybody's taxes.

[tooge]

The marginal increase is ballpark 3% on income above $250,000 so $7,500. Shouldn't be that hard to make up or radically change any plans in the Company.

Dave

But, and I am not saying I will do this, many small business owners will simply tell the employees that there is not going to be a raise this year, or next, because we have to work harder to get to where we were before. If you own your own business, you should understand what I am saying. Are you willing to take home less, and work more for the company to be at the same level, so that an employee can take home more? Simple question

[tooge]

tooge, the company's tax return at the end of the year shows a net profit of 500K?

Well, before the pretax buy in deal we do for me. I am still buying half of the practice from my partner. After that, no. I dont make $250k anyhow, so my question to start the thread was really aout of ignorance about Obamas plan. But if I made over $250K and my company had to pay more taxes, then ultimately the money comes out of my pocket. If that is the case, then I am not gonna be giving the employees a raise if I am taking a cut

[RJ]

But, and I am not saying I will do this, many small business owners will simply tell the employees that there is not going to be a raise this year, or next, because we have to work harder to get to where we were before. If you own your own business, you should understand what I am saying. Are you willing to take home less, and work more for the company to be at the same level, so that an employee can take home more? Simple question


Hey tooge, as an employee of a small business, I won't be expecting a raise any time real soon and it has nothing to do with corporate taxes. Is your business doing well enough that the employees will be expecting raises in this economy?

[RJ]

Well, before the pretax buy in deal we do for me. I am still buying half of the practice from my partner. After that, no. I dont make $250k anyhow, so my question to start the thread was really aout of ignorance about Obamas plan. But if I made over $250K and my company had to pay more taxes, then ultimately the money comes out of my pocket. If that is the case, then I am not gonna be giving the employees a raise if I am taking a cut


I couldn't blame you for that and I doubt your employees would either......assuming they don't all hate you already for entirely different reasons. :D

[tooge]

Hey tooge, as an employee of a small business, I won't be expecting a raise any time real soon and it has nothing to do with corporate taxes. Is your business doing well enough that the employees will be expecting raises in this economy?

OMG. You would be shocked. I can show the employees numbers out the wazoo. They can read the paper and watch TV. If they dont get the yearly raise, they act like I punched them in the gut and told them they suck. Really. Now, having said that, I haven't given many raises in the past year or so, but I haven't made any more either. I'm not Clark Hunt, if I had the "cap room", I would spread it amongs the employees. I still pay 100% of health care, offer a 401K plan, and vacation and sick pay.

[penguinz]

OMG. You would be shocked. I can show the employees numbers out the wazoo. They can read the paper and watch TV. If they dont get the yearly raise, they act like I punched them in the gut and told them they suck. Really. Now, having said that, I haven't given many raises in the past year or so, but I haven't made any more either. I'm not Clark Hunt, if I had the "cap room", I would spread it amongs the employees. I still pay 100% of health care, offer a 401K plan, and vacation and sick pay.100% of health care? You hiring? ;)

[talastan]

It reinstates the need for the fair tax or something that is not based on income IMO.

[RJ]

OMG. You would be shocked. I can show the employees numbers out the wazoo. They can read the paper and watch TV. If they dont get the yearly raise, they act like I punched them in the gut and told them they suck. Really. Now, having said that, I haven't given many raises in the past year or so, but I haven't made any more either. I'm not Clark Hunt, if I had the "cap room", I would spread it amongs the employees. I still pay 100% of health care, offer a 401K plan, and vacation and sick pay.


Sounds like you're a fair guy. If you're doing all that I doubt they'll be looking to bail on you over what is probably a small raise. People like to bitch at work, doesn't matter how good they have it. It's human nature.

You pay 100% of health care? That's a nice perk and must be a huge expense to the company. Which candidate do you think is most likely to help reduce your costs in that area?

BTW tooge, did you know that Obama loves barbecue, beer and football?

Best of luck with your decision!

[Chief Henry]

If you're making over a quarter of a million dollars plus a year, you should be doing just fine in the first place. The middle class have been footing the bill while the wealthy find loopholes. Welcome to our world.

You want Tooge to fork over HIS money to you ?

[Chief Henry]

OMG. You would be shocked. I can show the employees numbers out the wazoo. They can read the paper and watch TV. If they dont get the yearly raise, they act like I punched them in the gut and told them they suck. Really. Now, having said that, I haven't given many raises in the past year or so, but I haven't made any more either. I'm not Clark Hunt, if I had the "cap room", I would spread it amongs the employees. I still pay 100% of health care, offer a 401K plan, and vacation and sick pay.

You greedy SOB ;) To many on this board you are a capitalist pig and should open up your wallett and PAY more in tax's. Just ask them.

[ROYC75]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?

Obo will not be your friend on taxes .......it's just that simple.

[HonestChieffan]

In Obama world you will pay more taxes. And he would say you should work for a pittance and give all your profits to your employees and the government. Plus he is going to foce you to be part of the new national health care system and you pay pay pay.

Welcome to the new United Socialist Land of Obama.

[patteeu]

Obama's plan for you: STFU , pay your increased taxes, and quit threatening to take it out on your hard workers you greedy sonofabitch.

[whoman69]

But, and I am not saying I will do this, many small business owners will simply tell the employees that there is not going to be a raise this year, or next, because we have to work harder to get to where we were before. If you own your own business, you should understand what I am saying. Are you willing to take home less, and work more for the company to be at the same level, so that an employee can take home more? Simple question

I work for a large corporation. Pay raises are less than inflation and they took away the 401K match. I'm already taking in less and that's with the Bush tax cuts.

[patteeu]

I work for a large corporation. Pay raises are less than inflation and they took away the 401K match. I'm already taking in less and that's with the Bush tax cuts.

Speaking of 401K's (and other tax preferred retirement accounts), my prediction is that some democrats will start talking about taxing them in order to generate more revenue. They'll probably propose means testing so that it will appeal to the redistributionists among you. (My understanding is that there are already some bringing the idea up, but since I can't provide a link I'll just predict it).

Anyone who chooses a Roth IRA (tax benefit on the back end) over a traditional IRA (tax benefit up front) is too trusting in future governments if you ask me.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Speaking of 401K's (and other tax preferred retirement accounts), my prediction is that some democrats will start talking about taxing them in order to generate more revenue.

Or you can't deduct contributions from income.

[jidar]

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that he does away with all tax cuts, including to the middle class of which I am a part.

This country needs to balance the god damned budget, cut spending, and then we can worry about tax cuts after the fact.

[RJ]

I work for a large corporation. Pay raises are less than inflation and they took away the 401K match. I'm already taking in less and that's with the Bush tax cuts.



I'm worried my employer might go OB altogether, possibly before the next Prez takes office. And yet I am for some reason supposed to be concerned about what a dem will do to the economy. Go figure.

[RJ]

I'm voting for Obama in hopes that he does away with all tax cuts, including to the middle class of which I am a part.

This country needs to balance the god damned budget, cut spending, and then we can worry about tax cuts after the fact.



Agreed. If I have a choice between a balanced budget or a tax cut worth a few hundred bucks a year to me, I'll take the balanced budget.

[Amnorix]

No, I dont have to do anything but pay more. But damned if I am gonna take home less when I am the one that started the business. I bet that lots of business owners feel the same way and will tell the employees something like "sorry guys, but we are gonna have to freeze pay because the new administration (that you voted for) has made it more expensive to do business." I am serious here, there has to be more to it right? If your pay at home is less, do you not spend less? Same thing in business.

So let me get this straight -- you've been running an inefficient business with one or more employees that you don't really need because your tax rate was 36%, but now that it's going to be 39% on amounts you make that are above $250K, you're going to make your company more efficient?

Yes, you should do that. Frankly, you should've been doing that all along, and in the current down economy, you probably should be looking to tighten your belt anyway.

You're welcome.

[Amnorix]

But, and I am not saying I will do this, many small business owners will simply tell the employees that there is not going to be a raise this year, or next, because we have to work harder to get to where we were before. If you own your own business, you should understand what I am saying. Are you willing to take home less, and work more for the company to be at the same level, so that an employee can take home more? Simple question

Then, of course, you may well lose your employees to another employer, which may affect your profit margin as well.

It's capitalism. Presumably you don't pay more than the going rate just because you seriously love your employees.

[Amnorix]

Sounds like you're a fair guy. If you're doing all that I doubt they'll be looking to bail on you over what is probably a small raise. People like to bitch at work, doesn't matter how good they have it. It's human nature.

Especially in a down economy.

[Amnorix]

Obo will not be your friend on taxes .......it's just that simple.

There is more to life than the tax rate. It's just that simple.

[Calcountry]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?Vote for McCain, simply to keep a check and a balance on the liberals in Congress.

[Amnorix]

Speaking of 401K's (and other tax preferred retirement accounts), my prediction is that some democrats will start talking about taxing them in order to generate more revenue. They'll probably propose means testing so that it will appeal to the redistributionists among you. (My understanding is that there are already some bringing the idea up, but since I can't provide a link I'll just predict it).

Anyone who chooses a Roth IRA (tax benefit on the back end) over a traditional IRA (tax benefit up front) is too trusting in future governments if you ask me.

Probably true.

Frankly, our over-complicated tax code has resulted in over-complicated tax-avoidance/reduction methodologies. Between my wife and I, we have some Roth, some traditional, some 401(k), some SARSEP, and two educational accounts, and a Cafeteria Plan. All tax-avoidance accounts, basically.

Meanwhile the feds post huge losses annually, and the looming entitlement mess may (as you suggest) result in drastic review of our entire tax structure.

[Calcountry]

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think B.O. isn't raising everybody's taxes.Bill Clinton promised a "middle class tax cut" when he was campaigning in 1991. He also, said, "It is time, for change".

When he took office, he went before the media and proclaimed, "the situation is much worse than I thought or ever could have immagined while I was campaigning. We must raise revenue. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he wanted to raise revenue. He didn't want to increase spending, but rather, increase investment.

And it was on. In 1994 we got the R's in the Congress.

How old was a 22 year old change voter in 1994?

Do you really want to go down that road again? Only this time, it is for keeps, because Obama, is a Marxist. He believes in his cause, and the ends justify the means. He will do what he must to enact his vision, and if he can't enact it, he will impose it by fiat.

Do you want to live in a Marxist world? Is that the change you need? If it is, then you have your man, he will gladly give it to you.

[jettio]

I am not really a supporter of either guy, but I guess I will have to choose one or the other in the coming weeks. I am a partner in a business that is incorporated and employs 11 people besides my partner and I. Our annual profits are somewhere in the 500K range. My question is this. If the corporate taxes are raised, when it is time to review employee benefits and wages, wont those have to go down? I mean, just for status quo, if the govt. gets more, wont the employees get less? This has me concerned, because so many are thinking the exact opposite. Help me out here. Am I missing something?


Who does your taxes?

Seems as if you do not know anything about your business accounting. Do you have an accountant?

Do you know the difference between corporate tax and individual income tax?

Do you know what corporate form your business is in and what tax classification the business itself chose to be classified as?

Do you know that there are a lot better ways to find out answers than to post a tax question on a football fan board?

If you want to make some point that you expect to bring home a certain amount and that you will risk losing good employees to bring home that certain amount, I would caution against it.

It seems to me that you are awful lucky to earn what you do considering that you do not know basic simple sh*t about your business accounting, so you ought to reward your employees because there are not too many ways for a clueless person to make such a good living and your employees must be doing a helluva job.

[Brock]

jettio - the mirror image of Tom.

[jidar]

Bill Clinton promised a "middle class tax cut" when he was campaigning in 1991. He also, said, "It is time, for change".

When he took office, he went before the media and proclaimed, "the situation is much worse than I thought or ever could have immagined while I was campaigning. We must raise revenue. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he wanted to raise revenue. He didn't want to increase spending, but rather, increase investment.

And it was on. In 1994 we got the R's in the Congress.

How old was a 22 year old change voter in 1994?

Do you really want to go down that road again? Only this time, it is for keeps, because Obama, is a Marxist. He believes in his cause, and the ends justify the means. He will do what he must to enact his vision, and if he can't enact it, he will impose it by fiat.

Do you want to live in a Marxist world? Is that the change you need? If it is, then you have your man, he will gladly give it to you.

Do I want to go down the Road of Bill Clinton again?

The guy who balanced the budget, and reformed welfare without putting half of Americans out in the streets?

Yes! Please!

I'd take Bill Clinton over either of these two guys.

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Bill Clinton promised a "middle class tax cut" when he was campaigning in 1991. He also, said, "It is time, for change".

When he took office, he went before the media and proclaimed, "the situation is much worse than I thought or ever could have immagined while I was campaigning. We must raise revenue. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he wanted to raise revenue. He didn't want to increase spending, but rather, increase investment.

And it was on. In 1994 we got the R's in the Congress.

How old was a 22 year old change voter in 1994?

Do you really want to go down that road again? Only this time, it is for keeps, because Obama, is a Marxist. He believes in his cause, and the ends justify the means. He will do what he must to enact his vision, and if he can't enact it, he will impose it by fiat.

Do you want to live in a Marxist world? Is that the change you need? If it is, then you have your man, he will gladly give it to you.

Exactly!

While tax cuts are intriguing, Obama tax and spend history, including while state senator, does not support what he is proposing. Simply, I don't trust him.

[Amnorix]

Bill Clinton promised a "middle class tax cut" when he was campaigning in 1991. He also, said, "It is time, for change".

When he took office, he went before the media and proclaimed, "the situation is much worse than I thought or ever could have immagined while I was campaigning. We must raise revenue. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he wanted to raise revenue. He didn't want to increase spending, but rather, increase investment.

And it was on. In 1994 we got the R's in the Congress.

How old was a 22 year old change voter in 1994?

Do you really want to go down that road again? Only this time, it is for keeps, because Obama, is a Marxist. He believes in his cause, and the ends justify the means. He will do what he must to enact his vision, and if he can't enact it, he will impose it by fiat.

Do you want to live in a Marxist world? Is that the change you need? If it is, then you have your man, he will gladly give it to you.

That tax increase (along with Bush1's a few years earlier) helped fix the chronic deficits of the federal government, which in turn resulted in the federal government sucking up fewer loan dollars, lowering interest rates, and resulting in a prolonged boom economy.

God forbid that we do that. Rather, let's continue to have massive, chronic deficits, unsustainable spending in relation to revenues, with a looming entitlements crisis, all while sticking our heads in the sand about this issue.

[Amnorix]

I'd take Bill Clinton over either of these two guys.

QFT. If only he could keep his fly zipped...

[patteeu]

Probably true.

Frankly, our over-complicated tax code has resulted in over-complicated tax-avoidance/reduction methodologies. Between my wife and I, we have some Roth, some traditional, some 401(k), some SARSEP, and two educational accounts, and a Cafeteria Plan. All tax-avoidance accounts, basically.

Meanwhile the feds post huge losses annually, and the looming entitlement mess may (as you suggest) result in drastic review of our entire tax structure.

It seems to me like a bad time in our nation's history to be moving the tax base back toward production (represented by income) and away from consumption (represented by income less savings). We are overconsumers already and our businesses can't find enough domestic capital. As far as our economic health is concerned, this type of shift will encourage the wrong kind of behavior and discourage the right kind, IMO.

[patteeu]

Who does your taxes?

Seems as if you do not know anything about your business accounting. Do you have an accountant?

Do you know the difference between corporate tax and individual income tax?

Do you know what corporate form your business is in and what tax classification the business itself chose to be classified as?

Do you know that there are a lot better ways to find out answers than to post a tax question on a football fan board?

If you want to make some point that you expect to bring home a certain amount and that you will risk losing good employees to bring home that certain amount, I would caution against it.

It seems to me that you are awful lucky to earn what you do considering that you do not know basic simple sh*t about your business accounting, so you ought to reward your employees because there are not too many ways for a clueless person to make such a good living and your employees must be doing a helluva job.

Of course Tooge, you could vote for Obama so that all of his loving, give-peace-a-chance, unity-seeking supporters won't be jerks to you.

[chiefforlife]

It seems to me like a bad time in our nation's history to be moving the tax base back toward production (represented by income) and away from consumption (represented by income less savings). We are overconsumers already and our businesses can't find enough domestic capital. As far as our economic health is concerned, this type of shift will encourage the wrong kind of behavior and discourage the right kind, IMO.

Sounds more like you are describing our current situation...

[patteeu]

Sounds more like you are describing our current situation...

I don't get it.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Do I want to go down the Road of Bill Clinton again?

The guy who balanced the budget, and reformed welfare without putting half of Americans out in the streets?

Yes! Please!

I'd take Bill Clinton over either of these two guys.


The Cold War was over and the internet bubble was created. Clinton was just in the right place at the right time.