Fight The Power or Be The Power? (Page 2)

ShawnXx: That's a detailed example of the problems but I was actually hoping for ideas on how to solve them. There are plenty of complaints and people looking to place blame but not a lot of thinking about solutions. I don't want this thread to be another place for people to whine about politics. I'm not accusing you of whining btw.

Azathoth: Yeah, I was only raising more questions, I guess. I wish solutions were easy. They aren't...not for the layman like myself. Of course, that's why aspiring leaders have campaign managers and advisors.

I mean, what's the real answer on the tax questions that are obviously a hot-button topic now?

OCD_OCD: No one lays off employees just because someone is elected. They may lay off employees because of what they know is coming down the pike.

Small businesses ARE the little guys. Small businesses are people. Do you know that a small business is any business that employes 500 people or less? How many companies do you think have 500 employees or less? A lot. A hell of a lot of them.

Don't confuse big corporations like GE, Apple, Google, etc., with small businesses.

The government (meaning representatives and senators) do not coddle small businesses because small businesses don't have any leverage with them because they are small. It is the large corporations who have senators and representatives in their pocket. They are the ones who have lobbyists and are able to get laws and regulations changed that benefit them.

That's the reason there should not be any lobbyists in Washington. It is a system designed to be unfair on the face of it. Obama said there would be no lobbyists in Washington. I think that was great, but did it happen? No. And do you know why? Because politicians need money to get elected and they sell their souls and the souls of ever person that doesn't benefit them directly.

Obama isn't the answer if he isn't willing to deal with the problem and the problem is lobbyists and the unfair tax code. We will wait and see what he is going to do about all of the benefits given to big business. I will tell you right now, he's not going to do anything because he needs the power and money that big business represents.

OCD_OCD: In case I didn't make my answer to your question clear, we need to fix the tax code and go with either a fair tax or a flat tax. No one gets any special deals. No one.

We need to get rid of lobbyists in Washington so that they are no longer able to affect the tax laws and regulations that benefit big business.

Obama himself was working on behalf of big business when he propped up GM rather than letting GM go through a bankruptcy. Once they came out of the bankruptcy, they could have gotten government backed loans, if needed. The reason Obama did not want to let GM go through bankruptcy was because of the unions. If GM had gone through bankruptcy, the Union contracts would have been voided and they would have had to start over with something more reasonable.

Government has no business bailing out private companies. The legal remedy is an organized bankruptcy, not new rules applied to certain "special" companies.

Azathoth: Actually, they have and did recently. here is one example of several:

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

Here’s an excerpt from the interview. Click the audio tab below to hear even more from this compelling conversation:

“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

“Well unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees — well unfortunately we know what happened and I can’t wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”

You have a different perception than I do, OCD. For me, the "little guy" isn't a business owner. The "little guy" is at a much lower income level. The "fair tax" thing? That's all on what is PERCIEVED as fair. Flat tax? 15% of 20 million a year isn't as big a problem as 15% of 20 thousand. This logic doesn't help those that fall under my definition of "little guy" .

Azathoth: Btw, taxes should be something we want to contribute...not something we feel forced to contribute. The problem is that it would warrant a shift of thought to (a certain amount and not all) one that makes us function as a populous that cares about the person next to us, even if they're far away fiscally.

I don't like where my tax dollars go either. We all have our reasons to get irritated with taxes and where they are spent. I just don't get why it's a bad thing to aid social programs that help the less fortunate.

ShawnXx: I can't agree to a flat tax it just doesn't seem fair but there does need to be a tax code that is realistic and lobbyists are a problem. All the special treatments that occur have to be handled. The Government didn't have any business bailing out banks but some of the bailouts like for Automotive corporations paid off they have gotten back to production and are bringing back jobs. How can we bring jobs back to the US is a main problem we need a solution to.

Azathoth: And yes, he made layoffs because he saw something possibly coming. How did he know it was possibly coming? Because Obama was re elected. They are related and shouldn't be separated... (firing because of foresight and firing because of an election)

ShawnXx: There has to be a realistic decision on taxes and everybody is taxed but there are people who don't have taxable income and they seem to be the target of blame when people talk unfair taxing. I guess to avoid the issue that the rich should pay more. Are we really trying to be fair or are we giving special treatment to people who are considered more important?

OCD_OCD: GM has not paid off. Not at all.

The "rich" already pay more, even with the tax breaks. The "rich" need to be taxed fairly and to do that, the loopholes which allow them to take advantage of tax loopholes must be closed. An actual tax rate of 20% would bring in more taxes. No having a 35% tax rate and ending up paying 4% while small businesses pay a much larger percentage.

20% of $5 billion is a LOT more than 9%. meanwhile, a 20% tax rate on salaries would be a hell of a lot less than we pay now, yet there would still be more taxation dollars.

OCD_OCD: And no, I dont get all happy when I pay taxes. I donate my time and money to things and organizations that actually help people. I don't feel like I should have to pay my "fair share" of taxes used to study why men in Africa do not wash their hands.

Azathoth: GM has paid off. SoSweetlySo's father and many of our friends have been able to work again, because Saturn (in Spring Hill, TN) reopened as a GM plant.

Again: "fair tax" is in the perception of the taxed.

OCD_OCD: GM has not paid off for the taxpayers, it has paid off for GM's employees.

Azathoth: And I don't feel my tax dollars should be squandered in war efforts that further line the pockets and fatten the wallets of politicians and their wealthy constituents.

Azathoth: GM employees don't pay taxes?

OCD_OCD: If course they pay taxes, but why is GM and its employees a protected species?

Azathoth: They aren't and that was never suggested. GM isn't alone in paying off.

OCD_OCD: Yes, GM was treated differently. When the government decides that our financial and legal recourses is not good enough for any private company, it is wrong. Government should not be in the business of deciding which companies should survive and/or which class of worker gets preferential treatment on the taxpayers dime.

Azathoth: Unfortunately, the Jainsville, WI GM plant was put on standby and has ceased production. That cannot be said everywhere, though.

Azathoth: Romney's and other conservatives' Bain Capital has bailed out plenty...then turned it all over for profit. That's not an issue? Is it only what a Democrat does, in bailing out, that is the problem?

ShawnXx: Chrysler paid off I don't know about all Automotive comps and I didn't say all. Bailouts are debatable just like fair tax everyone whines about how unfair tax. We all know who we want to blame but no one can agree on how the taxes can be used fairly. Are social programs that help people really unnecessary for everyone or just the bad apples people moan about?

PigCatcher: lololololol ^^^^^

True definition of an S Corp............

What is an S corporation?
An S corporation is a regular corporation that lets you enjoy the limited liability of a corporate shareholder but pay income taxes on the same basis as a sole proprietor or a partner.

In a regular corporation (also known as a C corporation), the company itself is taxed on business profits. The owners pay individual income tax only on money that they draw from the corporation as salary, bonuses or dividends. By contrast, in an S corporation, all business profits “pass through” to the owners, who report them on their personal tax returns (as in sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs). The S corporation itself does not pay any income tax, although a co-owned S corporation must file an informational tax return like a partnership or LLC — to tell the IRS what each shareholder’s portion of the corporate income is.

Source............

http://articles.bplans.com/small-business-legal-issues/business-s-corporation-facts-and-options/139


One of the criteria for an S Corp is that all directors must be US citizens or residents.

May I suggest to this person that she do the proper and correct research next time before posting nonsense that is not correct.

But hey, skewered to fit her way of thinking....again!

PigCatcher: with that, I'm off. Busy day today.

Azathoth: It would be unfair to restrict, by legislation, the spoiled apples from the bunch, Shawn.

I don't think this should turn into a political discussion, though. There needs to be real solutions talked about and maybe found. Or is that just me again?

PigCatcher: PS: there have been NO LAYOFFS in Canada because of the Obama election. Kindly stop lying.