BF2S Forums "I'm going to fire two employees if Obama wins"

Kmarion wrote:

Yea.. u don't want to be an s-corp in that situation. Nor an LLC, which most small businesses are. The capital gains taxes are supposed to be reduced under his plan as well. I'm getting out of my range of knowledge now. Think of it this way, Obama's tax plan is at least 95% the same as Dubya's. He is really just rolling back some of the tax cuts for big business (defined by number of employees). From 36% to 39% I think.

I'm going to be very busy when Obama wins.  I service about 30-40 passthru entities (aka the business doesn't get taxed except by the state, and the individual gets taxed instead).  I'm going to have to figure out if it makes more sense for them to become C-Corps instead.  My bet is over half of them switch.  And then there's all sorts of pros and cons involved.  But the bottom line is most of them will end up paying more tax, and might consider contracting their business to make more money.  That's asinine.

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

My heart bleeds for them....

Somebody has to pay the bill and those most capable of doing so should be the ones picking up the tab in a time of crisis - not those struggling to survive on the breadline. Tough but that´s the way it is. The problem at this current point in time is protecting those most in need - job creation is not on the books right now: we will see plummeting employment for quite some time and that will have not much to do with taxation and everything to do with the fucking mess on Wall Street. As such, spending on protecting those that lose their jobs until the market sorts itself out is priority number one imo.

Roc18 wrote:

Its just a bunch of rich guys whining. I doubt that doctor really cares about those 2 employees hes gonna fire, he just wants to protect his profits.

If you set up a system where people can make money based on a business decision, isn't that protecting your profits?  And unfortunately that's UnAmerican to do so?  That's backasswards.

I've provided an example on how the new economic policy will encourage businesses to increase unemployment in the short term.

For example:
Doctor pays $85k in taxes, his eight employees pay $15k each or $120k total.  Total collected = $205k.

Doctor fires two people.
Doctor pays $70k in taxes by reducing his income level, his six employees pay $12.5k each under lower taxes or $75k total.  Total collected = $145k.

There is no incentive for the doctor to grow his business as the take home will be less.

I am watching how Obama is addressing this issue, I haven't seen how it makes economic sense to do anything different unless we eliminate tax brackets and go with a different system altogether...which is a whole other can of worms.

.

That example is too general, there are instances where businesses are making more than enough profit and should be taxed to help fund the government for things things like infrastructure, helping people who cant help themselves in this country and education.

Kmarion wrote:

OBAMA wrote:

Well, let's break down what she really means by a mandate. What's meant by a mandate is the government is forcing people to buy health insurance (via taxes). And so she's (Hillary) suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it.

Now my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable. Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate? I mean if a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house.

The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money. And so our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident that if people have a chance to buy high quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. And that's what our plan does. And nobody disputes that.

The most reasonable answer I've ever heard from any candidate.

I agree completely with Obama in this regard.  Health care costs are unbelievable.  I don't really like talking about this crap with the poker docs, but I understand their point of view.  If there's a segment they can service without seeing medicare folks, they'll do it?  Why?  Medicare payments are smaller and they pay well after the services are performed.

By increasing the restrictions to make it more affordable, the patient gets a better deal.  However, less doctors will accept medicare patients in the process.  So the quality of doctors who service medicare will decline.  Medicare needs to be fixed...if they just paid faster and without less arguments, it would take care of 90% of the doctors' gripes.

Last edited by Pug (2008-10-17 13:05:58)

oChaos.Haze wrote:

Then the doctors you play poker with are idiots.  Go to any hospital in the country and you will soon learn we already have nationalized health care.  You already pay for everyone who can't afford it, and have been doing so for years. 

Every person in the medical field that I know LOVES Obama.  Now maybe you play poker with private practice assdweebs who got into medicine for the money and the chicks, but out of the countless docs and nurses I know, every one of them is for Obama. 

And please tell me how the lower and middle classes would eventually be screwed over.  I'd love to see where in his plan he says, "Oh and let us not forget to tax the shit out of people who have no money."  This is such an irrational extrapolation.

I hope you at least take their money everytime you play, because they obviously aren't the brightest of the bunch, hence why they are in private practice in the first place.

QFT

My step-dad is head of his little medical group in Texarkana, one of the most racist and segregated towns in the USA.  They're all Obama fans.   Yes, they realize their taxes will take a small hike of a few hundred bucks, but that's nothing compared to their portfolios taking a nosedive on the money front.  On the medical front, they're sick to death of insurance companies dictating who can and can't receive a certain level of care, as well as all the administrative overhead juggling who to stick with the bills.  A single-payer system would solve a lot of problems.

This story just reeks of right-wing chainmailiness.  Strykker tried a similar story of his bullshit patriotism about a year ago.

PekkaA wrote:

Thread starter should seriously consider voting Obama. Why? Because - as far as I've understood it correct - he's willing to increase education. And Pug really needs it. How can someone who's born in Eenglish-speaking country write such bad Eenglish? No wonder your country is going down the toilet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy_(band)

Last edited by Miggle (2008-10-17 13:04:49)

Miggle wrote:

PekkaA wrote:

Thread starter should seriously consider voting Obama. Why? Because - as far as I've understood it correct - he's willing to increase education. And Pug really needs it. How can someone who's born in Eenglish-speaking country write such bad Eenglish? No wonder your country is going down the toilet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy_(band)

Pug wrote:

PekkaA wrote:

Thread starter should seriously consider voting Obama. Why? Because - as far as I've understood it correct - he's willing to increase education. And Pug really needs it. How can someone who's born in english-speaking country write such bad english? No wonder your country is going down the toilet...

Thanks.

I corrected the two typos and the tense problem.

It made a huge difference.  Hopefully now you can understand my point.

Anyone ever get the feeling that we're being duped on this D+ST thing?

I'm starting to feel like I'm in some circle of hell where they're field testing right-wing talking points, chain mails, and concern troll screeds just to see what does and doesn't get argued with and how its countered.  If it takes a bit of research to counter the arguement, its still good since most wingnuts would just forward it along as another good "story".  Even the AP is doing this, which really worries me.

Pug, you should really try to mix some "regular joes" in there to be more populist if you really want the story to garner sympathy.  Most chainmail forwarding retards don't make that kind of money.  Also, you could just make them something other than doctors, maybe throw in a plumbing business owner...scratch that...a poor small town banker or custody lawyer helping dads to see their kids who will now lose his secretary.  Something like this.  A bunch of old crabby Jewishy doctors sitting around a poker table delivering poorly acted and scripted lines seems like a campaign commercial.

Thanks PekkaA, you helped him polish his gmail before he hit mass forward...now it looks professional.

this thread really highlights one of the main divisions between the party lines.  if i was a business owner, i would absolutely want tax breaks... since i'm not, i don't.   

keep it going, i am actually enjoying this little debate

he's a med school student

IIRC, under the Obama plan, the higher tax rate only applies to any income over $250k. So you pay the lower rate for all earnings up to $250k, then you pay the higher rate on all earnings from $250,000.01 and up. It's not like the increased tax rate applies to all earnings once you cross that line.

The Medicare/Medicaid payment issue seems to me to be a bigger concern for those guys. Much more so than the new tax structure being proposed.

Pug wrote:

If you set up a system where people can make money based on a business decision, isn't that protecting your profits?  And unfortunately that's UnAmerican to do so?  That's backasswards.

I've provided an example on how the new economic policy will encourage businesses to increase unemployment in the short term.

For example:
Doctor pays $85k in taxes, his eight employees pay $15k each or $120k total.  Total collected = $205k.

Doctor fires two people.
Doctor pays $70k in taxes by reducing his income level, his six employees pay $12.5k each under lower taxes or $75k total.  Total collected = $145k.

There is no incentive for the doctor to grow his business as the take home will be less.

I am watching how Obama is addressing this issue, I haven't seen how it makes economic sense to do anything different unless we eliminate tax brackets and go with a different system altogether...which is a whole other can of worms.

.

Pug - your statement "there is no incentive for the doctor to grow his business" is nonsense. You grow your business, you earn more. Simple as that. The size of the business expansion just has to be larger, that´s all (which shouldn´t be too hard in a profession where business is guaranteed). You have given a very specific example here - those who are on the cusp of the tax band. That is a very specific example. What is your suggestion? Your rationale implies reduction of taxes always leads, paradoxically, to an increase in tax take. Why not reduce tax to 1% then? Do you honestly believe that would be viable??? This doctor appears to value his own personal comfort and luxury than keeping his employees in paid employment. That´s fair enough but frankly he´s a fucking crybaby if you ask me. I´ve been hit with a tax increase in the latest Irish budget - do you hear me complaining? No, because we have to collectively pick up the tab in the interests of society in general.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-18 07:08:00)

FEOS wrote:

IIRC, under the Obama plan, the higher tax rate only applies to any income over $250k. So you pay the lower rate for all earnings up to $250k, then you pay the higher rate on all earnings from $250,000.01 and up. It's not like the increased tax rate applies to all earnings once you cross that line.

THANK YOU. I'm glad someone here realises the whole bracket system.