Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't tell you how many family businesses I know that have closed up... it's not that they were not profitable or kept 10 to 30 on the payroll... it was the overall burden/risk/responsibility was not in proportion to the reward...
I see this medical practices all the time... the requirements are nearly the same for a sole practitioner or a medical group... so why undertake the headache of running a practice, being an employer when you can be an employee for a large HMO and actually have benefits and paid vacation and someone to cover for you?
Friends that had successful companies in Biomed now have no employees... wealthy individuals have no one to carry on the family business because being an employer continues to become more and more complicated...
I met a couple that gave up their US citizenship and have not looked back... who does this and why?
Another woman married a German citizen when she was stationed in Germany 24 years ago... her German Bank closed her bank account because she was a US Citizen and she and her German husband had to file US tax returns with no ties to the U.S. other than her citizenship... they have 3 kids that are German... it got to point where she was glad to let it go.
The trick is to increase the taxes the wealthy pay without prompting them to move or decide to work less and reduce their income. .
The trick? LOL, sorry, they are more financially educated and will understand what is happening. What people aren't getting it is they are being tricked. Politicians understand that as Gruber said, "the stupidity of the American voter", the people won't understand they are being taken for a ride, they actually think government is going after "the rich guy".
SS never made any "sense". It was a scheme for giving welfare money to old people while calling it something else. SS benefits are paid by those currently working and paying SS. It isn't a savings plan. Until very recently the benefit was greater than the present value of what was paid in, on average. People who collected a few decades back made out like crazy. They got full benefits but paid in little. When the program started, people collected who had never paid in. We've finally caught up and those retiring now will collect about what they paid in. Young people now will collect *less* than they paid in. But not a lot less. From now on the benefits should be expected to roughly match payments during your life on average.
If I had my way, we'd phase it out and go to a UBI for everyone.
I understand what SS is and it isn't a scheme. Conceptually it's simple and even the wealthy get something out of it
I can't tell you how many family businesses I know that have closed up... it's not that they were not profitable or kept 10 to 30 on the payroll... it was the overall burden/risk/responsibility was not in proportion to the reward...
I see in medical practices all the time... the requirements are nearly the same for a sole practitioner or a medical group...
Friends that had successful companies in Biomed now have no employees... wealthy individuals have no one to carry on the family business because being an employer continues to become more and more complicated...
I met a couple that gave up their US citizenship and have not looked back... who does this and why?
Yep, I was just saying this. Policy can encourage or discourage activity. Current policies discourage.
Why take more risk of plowing money back into the business, more responsibility of employees, headaches, to grow a business when the risk is not in proportion to the reward. The people who support these policies are hurting themselves. There is no incentive to grow.
The idea of punishing the 1% is somewhat comical given the disparities of wealth and power involved and the fact that our political system is owned by the wealthy and has been ever since Jay Gould roamed the halls of Albany with a valise full of greenbacks. Seriously, how could the proles ever lay a glove on the actual 1%? They can't. The 1% are untouchable. Their capital is mighty, diversified, global, many headed like the hydra.
The aggrieved tone of the OP gives a hint as to the real concerns involved: taxation burdens on those people in the upper-middle range with enough wealth to have a solid appreciation of the magic of capital gains. Someone making a six-figure income can glimpse the lay of the land in the upper brackets of our society, but like Moses they have little to no hope of entering the promised land. They, of all people, feel the sting of taxation most personally.
I can't tell you how many family businesses I know that have closed up... it's not that they were not profitable or kept 10 to 30 on the payroll... it was the overall burden/risk/responsibility was not in proportion to the reward...
I see this medical practices all the time... the requirements are nearly the same for a sole practitioner or a medical group... so why undertake the headache of running a practice, being an employer when you can be an employee for a large HMO and actually have benefits and paid vacation and someone to cover for you?
Friends that had successful companies in Biomed now have no employees... wealthy individuals have no one to carry on the family business because being an employer continues to become more and more complicated...
I don't disagree, but I wonder to what extent the travails and burdens of running a small-business stem directly from regulatory overreach, and what is more a matter of the dynamics of dealing with employees, customers, market vagaries and so forth. It's troublesome to be the proprietor of a private concern. Well, how much of that trouble is from federal/state/local intrusions, taxes and regulations and so forth... and how much is just general business-life?
From what I've seen, there's stark difference in prestige and community-standing between a professional who runs a private business (dental practice, law practice, etc.) vs. one who is a well-compensated salaried employee for a corporation. The latter is viewed as a drone, a stuffed-shirt and a parasite who earns good money for slipshod and overblown labor. The former is a community hero and the archetype of American virtue. The reason for accepting the "headache of running a practice" is, quite simply, personal fulfillment; or more cynically, prestige.
The idea of punishing the 1% is somewhat comical given the disparities of wealth and power involved and the fact that our political system is owned by the wealthy and has been ever since Jay Gould roamed the halls of Albany with a valise full of greenbacks. Seriously, how could the proles ever lay a glove on the actual 1%? They can't. The 1% are untouchable. Their capital is mighty, diversified, global, many headed like the hydra.
The aggrieved tone of the OP gives a hint as to the real concerns involved: taxation burdens on those people in the upper-middle range with enough wealth to have a solid appreciation of the magic of capital gains. Someone making a six-figure income can glimpse the lay of the land in the upper brackets of our society, but like Moses they have little to no hope of entering the promised land. They, of all people, feel the sting of taxation most personally.
How can they understand your post if they don't know the difference between the 1% (upper middle class) and the truly wealthy, the 0.01%. Instead they bought the propaganda and didn't use critical thinking skills they are supposedly born with. I find it's comical that people actually believed Obama. There are two problems with his "tax the rich" propaganda,
1. The rich are powerful and would not support higher taxes on themselves,
2. High income does not mean someone is rich, it means they are high income. They can be high income for 1-2 years, maybe many years but did they have time to build wealth? Yes they can be rich if they've pulled a high income for awhile and if they were smart with their money but lets consider the new doctor who is just now realizing a high income but didn't have the time to build wealth. Now it's harder for the doctor because he has a government grab target on his back.
I am always surprised at the griping. After all ACA is like to delay other increases for many in greater benefit cost. I mean the average company contributed 13K plus a year for health insurance per employee accord to government stats. now they are paying most the bill for others in the bill funding. What do people expect is my real question. All actions have unintended consequences and we will see the with any tax or increase fees charged by government. For many the subsidty was a huge benefit increase especially for those with pre-existing conditions. The consequence increase cost and government consuming more of GDP without producing any increase in GDP will bring consequences.
Have you ever studied the theory of comparative advantage?
Yes, I'm a proponent of free trade, remember? Comparative advantage only works when countries are able to acheive overall approx trade parity. No problem losing labor intensive industries to China, but we need to replace it with something we can export... ie something we have a comparative advantage in. Instead we've let our economy deteriorate and accumulated debt to compensate.
The countries who have behaved like the US have experienced declining living standards and high debt. The ones tied to the Euro are in serious trouble. The only country I know of that has gotten away with it is Australia, because they've been able to attract a lot of foreign capital investment in their mining, primarily.
Quote:
Maxed out your credit cards? Credit score falling? Sounds like a personal problem.
Never used credit for anything except a home purchase.
Quote:
Total Public Debt Outstanding:
Dec 31, 2008: $10,699,804,864,612.13
COB Yesterday: $18,152,498,688,867.48
Meaningless to US consumers. Try this one:
Quote:
There has not been an economically successful Republican administration in more than a century. Nine of the ten US recessions since 1950 began under Republican Presidents.
No argument there, but the Reps always hold the hard line on spending until they are in office. Then we will get the fiscal stimulus we've been needing, along with a return to easy credit and a new debt bubble... before the next collapse. It will be like Bush 3 is the return of Reagan. We won't get good wages or domestic investment, because all the smart people will know it's short-lived. Like Bush 2 the collapse might happen at the end of their term, but spin will pin it on the next guy...
There has not been an economically successful Republican administration in more than a century. Nine of the ten US recessions since 1950 began under Republican Presidents.
Quote:
the collapse might happen at the end of their term, but spin will pin it on the next guy...
What normally happens is D's get into power and screw things up, then the people vote republicans to pick up the pieces and they get blamed. Hey I heard that even though Baltimore has been run by democrats / liberals for a long time they are blaming republicans. Go figure lol. Then the other happens. To say otherwise is being a party loyalist without critical thinking skills.
It's about who can spew the best rhetoric and how the public can be manipulated out of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
