government spending is NUTS!

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by RJF

Well, that's not paying their fair share.

You know how much Mark and I are penalized for owning Zilvia and if we manage to have a few dollars left at the end of the year? We get hit with Self-employment taxes and penalties for not withholding during the year.

How are we supposed to know if we will have a profit at the end of the year when things change and fluctuate during the year? Right now we are paying off credit card bills for $8000 in server and network equipment.

How does that type of attitude help small businesses plan for the future and try to hire and pay employees, even if they are just part-time?

Do you think this puts you in the fabled "over taxed rich" or the reality of over burdened middle class?

If you were an oil company the government would subsidize you and then let you skate on taxes.






EDIT
I don't get why people think taxing the middle and lower class more than 30% of their income is fair or constructive but taxing the upper classes any more 3% is stifling and morally abhorrent. The upper classes make more than that in interest in a matter of days. The middle class will never get that back, not even through social programs.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

^^

Hypothetically, I wonder how beneficial that scenario would be to the US?

The ensuing nuclear war would allow American and Eurpean companies to clean house on half the planet. We'd be selling them weapons, food, medicine, just about anything you can imagine.

And you bet your ass America would be selling to both sides. Why change what's worked for two world wars and a long series of proxy wars?

[bb4_96]

^I think one way or another it would wind up being a donation in the long run. And then more donations in the form of aid afterward. And if we did charge they couldn't afford it. And the countries that can afford it either don't need it or wouldn't want it.

[kingkilburn]

America donates to people not countries. There is always a motive behind humanitarian aid to countries.

[ch1873857]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

America donates to people not countries. There is always a motive behind humanitarian aid to countries.

really? please explain.

[kingkilburn]

America gives food and medicine to Somalia(not that there is actually a government to give to) with no expectations of a return on investment as side from it looks good and is the right thing to do.

America gives Pakistan aid in return for the continued ability to do military operations within their borders.

[upsdude]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

America gives Pakistan aid in return for the continued ability to do military operations within their borders.

you mean operations like the one where we HAD TO SNEAK IN to kill bin laden?

[kingkilburn]

You always sneak in when ASSASSINATING people.

[word sux]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

You always sneak in when ASSASSINATING people.

not if you assassinate like a baws

[kingkilburn]

Any way.


I was that comment was more leaning towards things like airspace control and patrolling across the border.

[S14DB]

Remember, Corporations are people too....

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by S14DB

Remember, Corporations are people too....

That's the most bullshit ruling the Supreme Court has given us and still doesn't excuse them for getting by on their taxes.

[S14DB]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

That's the most bullshit ruling the Supreme Court has given us and still doesn't excuse them for getting by on their taxes.

They aren't the only ones that believe that.

Romney in Iowa: 'Corporations are people' too - latimes.com

[kingkilburn]

Does that mean a corporation can go to jail in a wrongful death case? Will it go to jail for tax evasion. Is a corporation limited allowed to vote in elections?


A corporation is only a person when it is helpful for politicians getting elected.

[imotion s14]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Does that mean a corporation can go to jail in a wrongful death case?

Wrongful Death is civil law. You don't go to prison under civil law.

But yes, a corporation is a legal person. A person is NOT always a human being. Just like property/land. If you scoop up dirt in Westwood where land is more expensive does it mean the dirt is worth a lot compared to dirt from Compton? Of course not.

[kingkilburn]

I was thinking man slaughter and wrote wrongful death.


Until politicians and corporate lawyers decided otherwise a person was always 100% a human being.


Your dirt analogy is a waste of time. When you are buying that Westwood property you are buying it for its location not mineral value. Moving the dirt around doesn't change where the property is located.




Almost forgot.
:r ofl:

[axiomatik]

Originally Posted by RJF

Love how people who pay no income tax say "Tax the Rich". How about the 50% of American that don't pay taxes, pay their fair share.

Did you get a tax refund?

What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by RJF

Well, that's not paying their fair share.

You know how much Mark and I are penalized for owning Zilvia and if we manage to have a few dollars left at the end of the year? We get hit with Self-employment taxes and penalties for not withholding during the year.

Well, it would be income. Do you think some of your income should be tax-free?

Originally Posted by RJF

How are we supposed to know if we will have a profit at the end of the year when things change and fluctuate during the year? Right now we are paying off credit card bills for $8000 in server and network equipment.

How does that type of attitude help small businesses plan for the future and try to hire and pay employees, even if they are just part-time?

Generally, the penalty only kicks in if you owe over $1000 in taxes. If you get to the end of the year with some money, you can do several things. Re-invest that money back into zilvia, so you don't show any income. Make a one-time estimated tax payment at the end of the year. Or, take a look at what your average tax burden has been over the past ten years. Average it out and make estimated payments based on that amount. Millions of self-employed people do it every year, whether they be business owners, writers, artists, contract employees, etc.

But that is neither here nor there, this thread is about spending, not how complicated the tax code is.

[Walperstyle]

The whole underlying problem is Jobs. There is too many laws in place that do more harm then protecting the employment in the Western world.

It costs 1.5 billion dollars to bring a new car to market. Maybe its time to lessen some of these BS safety laws for MFG and allow the smaller car companies to compete in America again.

No more protecting Unionized big business that cannot compete globally. Cheers!

[kingkilburn]

Safety should NEVER be compromised to make a product cheaper. If you want to lower the cost of entry in the auto industry pay unskilled laborers less than three times federal minimum wage or pay executives less than tens of millions.

[axiomatik]

Originally Posted by Walperstyle

The whole underlying problem is Jobs. There is too many laws in place that do more harm then protecting the employment in the Western world.

It costs 1.5 billion dollars to bring a new car to market. Maybe its time to lessen some of these BS safety laws for MFG and allow the smaller car companies to compete in America again.

No more protecting Unionized big business that cannot compete globally. Cheers!

It costs a lot of money to bring a car to market because cars are large, very complex assemblies that require major industry to put together. Beyond that, they are expected to keep working safely and efficiently for 10 years in any kind of weather or operating condition.

That said, I think there should be allowances for small, niche manufacturers. It would be great to have a cottage industry of small sports car makers like in Britain. Allow small companies to sell cars without airbags or crash tests, but require them to be plastered with large disclaimers letting the buyer know the risks they are taking. These kinds of exemptions would only apply to manufacturers who build less than 100 or 200 cars a year, for example.

[Walperstyle]

Originally Posted by axiomatik

That said, I think there should be allowances for small, niche manufacturers. It would be great to have a cottage industry of small sports car makers like in Britain. Allow small companies to sell cars without airbags or crash tests, but require them to be plastered with large disclaimers letting the buyer know the risks they are taking. These kinds of exemptions would only apply to manufacturers who build less than 100 or 200 cars a year, for example.

We shouldn't even need the disclaimers. Lawyers f'd up the western world. Back in the old days, if you smashed a car into some children, it was your fault, not Toyota's.

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Safety should NEVER be compromised to make a product cheaper. If you want to lower the cost of entry in the auto industry pay unskilled laborers less than three times federal minimum wage or pay executives less than tens of millions.

Safety standards keep getting higher due to stupid people. There is no reason we need to have airbags at all if people knew how to drive. So glad they have the 'no texting, eating, talking on phone' while you drive law here where I live. Its one of the few that makes sense.

Truth be told, the next generation of drivers doesn't care about driving as much. They want cheap reliable transporation.... so let the little guy build cars the size of smart cars that are Ipod connected voice controlled little computers that don't go over 40mph because they are wireless ECU limited by proximity to the city they are in. DONE, I just saved the USA auto mfg.