What Obama and liberals do not understand about business.

[Don Harris]

"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
taxes."
- Ronald Reagan

[deep]

Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.

[Jeff M]

Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can be
deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense. The President
is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall. That might make a good
cap figure.

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...

And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.

In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
worsening the US economy.

[George Plimpton]

Not quite right, but close enough.

What Obama and liberals don't understand about business is *any* of it.
They don't care about business - in fact, they *hate* business - and
you can't understand something that you hate and that holds no interest
for you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Wrong. Tax business owners at the same rate as everyone else. No
reason they should have to pay more.

[Michael A. Terrell]

They should tax the stupid 90%, since they think that's a fair
number.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

I disagree. Democrats should NOT be taxed at 90%. :>

[deep]

You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for
once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or
services and pass the cost on to the public. So eliminate all profits
an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year. 90% on
personal income. So if a corporation wants to keep their money
invested in the corporation and are using it appropriately to grow
their business and create jobs then no taxes. As soon as they pay
their CEO 1.5 million a year and bonuses and profit sharing in the
millions, then that money is taxed at a very high rate. No
exceptions, no deductions for personal income. Flat rate for
everyone. Of course it will never happen. The wealthy and their
lawyers control the system and they like it just the way it is.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>taxes."
>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>
>>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.
>>
>>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>>worsening the US economy.
>>
>>
>You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for
>once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or
>services and pass the cost on to the public. So eliminate all profits
>an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
>the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year.

Wrong. Everyone gets taxed at the same rate. That's the ONLY way
that's fair.

But you're not about what's fair. You're about taking. Take as much as
you can. If someone else has something you want, take it.

Your president has already given you the go ahead. "He didn't build
that." It's not really his. It's yours. You helped. Take what's yours.

Good God, you people are fools.

[F. George McDuffee]

=============

Two quick observations:

(1) Many thinkers have observed that at some point ther
quantitative becomes the qualitative, or to put it another
and more easily understood way, as something increases in
size without limit, it morphs into something, else even when
the name stays the same. This is particularly true when a
corporation ceases to be a domestic corporation and morphs
into a transnational and then a supranational organization
with minimal connection to their original line of business.
One example of this is Hewlett-Packard, another is General
Motors, e.g. was this a car company or a bank?

(2) The is a considerable difference between an organization
"collecting a tax" and remitting this tax to the government.
Indeed, it appears, based on the solid evidence of the their
tax returns and annual reports, most of the so-called
"taxes" are never remitted (e.g. like General Electric, they
pay *NO* income tax) but instead these wind up in an off
shore tax haven and/or are paid out to the officers,
directors and cadre management in grossly excessive
compensation.

Indeed, through the magic of "carry forward" tax losses and
a highly baroque, opaque and arcane tax code, it is highly
doubtful any significant amount of taxes, said to be
collected for the government, will ever be remitted to the
government, without a total rewrite of the tax code
including the imposition of unitary taxation to prevent the
transfer of profits to low/no tax jurisdiction through
ruses, dodges, wheezes and ploys such as "transfer pricing."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/?mobile=nc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing
http://www.answers.com/topic/unitary-taxation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulary_apportionment


When we don't get what we want and need, we get what we
deserve. If god didn't want us sheared, she wouldn't have
made us sheep...


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[deep]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:09:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"
>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>>taxes."
>>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>>
>>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>
>>>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>>>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.
>>>
>>>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>>>worsening the US economy.
>>>
>>>
>>You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for
>>once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or
>>services and pass the cost on to the public. So eliminate all profits
>>an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
>>the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year.
>
>Wrong. Everyone gets taxed at the same rate. That's the ONLY way
>that's fair.

It's fair because the wealthy use infrastructure more for their profit
making than do the poor. They should be taxed at a higher rate to
support the infrastructure they require for their business.

>
>But you're not about what's fair. You're about taking. Take as much as
>you can. If someone else has something you want, take it.
>
>Your president has already given you the go ahead. "He didn't build
>that." It's not really his. It's yours. You helped. Take what's yours.
>
>Good God, you people are fools.

You're a liar. That's not what Obama said.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Wrong. Since they make more money they pay more money when taxed at
the same rate.

The REALLY fair way to tax is to have everyone pay the same dollar
amount.

The NEXT best thing is to make everyone pay the same percentage.

You got a problem with loopholes and tax breaks? Then write your
congressman and have them eliminated.

>>But you're not about what's fair. You're about taking. Take as much as
>>you can. If someone else has something you want, take it.
>>
>>Your president has already given you the go ahead. "He didn't build
>>that." It's not really his. It's yours. You helped. Take what's yours.
>>
>>Good God, you people are fools.
>
>You're a liar. That's not what Obama said.

Yeah he did. He said, ""If you've got a business--you didn't build
that. Somebody else made that happen.""

Those were his exact words to his faithful followers.

And what he meant was, " It's not really yours. It's ours. We helped.
We're gonna take what's ours. We don't want you business- that's too
much like work. We want your profits. Give them to us. Now."

[Alec Fraser]

"deep" wrote in message news:brtj48hqcjag6tijs...@4ax.com...

>^^^^^

That's a lie, you retard.
After all, even YOU said not to tax the business.
The businesses are using, AND paying to use the infrastructure already.
The CEO's and other rich individuals don't use it ANY more than any other
individual, you retard.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sep 6, 9:53 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:

> Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can be
> deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense.  The President
> is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall.  That might make a good
> cap figure.

You apparently do not know what the current laws are. Congress
already did that. So now the companies give stock options instead of
higher salaries.


Dan

[Michael A. Terrell]

Well, after they take the deduction for their new cardboard box house
& a bus pass to the free clinic, it'll only be 89%. ;-)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

What the hell. Let's do it for the children.

[Tom Del Rosso]

He thinks not taxing the same money twice is a subsidy.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>
> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>

> >> >Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> >> >>
> >> >> >deep wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong. Tax business owners at the same rate as everyone else. No
> >> >> reason they should have to pay more.
> >> >
> >> > They should tax the stupid 90%, since they think that's a fair
> >> >number.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Democrats should NOT be taxed at 90%. :>
> >
> > Well, after they take the deduction for their new cardboard box house
> >& a bus pass to the free clinic, it'll only be 89%. ;-)
>
> What the hell. Let's do it for the children.

Just sterilize them, and they can't have children. Just like removing
a diseased tree from an orchard. :)

[Gunner]

The Great Cull will remove them AND any medical expenses. Afterall...a
bit of barbed wire or a single round to the back of the skull is very
very cheap.

Unless you have a good way to sterilize them while they are penned
and ready to be hooked to a plow.

Gunner

--
You just opened the window for a glimpse at the liberal mindset. You
people think, for some unknown reason, that since you are infinitely
more "intelligient" than the "average" citizen then it's not only your
God given right, but a responsibilty to tell everyone else how they
should live, spend their money, what to eat, what to drive, how much
to eat and drink and what to set your thermostat to. Of course, those
same rules don't apply to you because you, being a highly educated
individual with a degree in the "arts", don't have to abide by those
same rules. Thank GOD you are in the minority.
"Robert Westergrom"

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner wrote:
>
> The Great Cull will remove them AND any medical expenses. Afterall...a
> bit of barbed wire or a single round to the back of the skull is very
> very cheap.
>
> Unless you have a good way to sterilize them while they are penned
> and ready to be hooked to a plow.

Plasma cutter, and a hot branding iron to cauterize the wound. ;-)

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
4ax.com:

However, that isn't the law, is it.

--

If you see a bomb technician running....
Do try to keep up with him.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
news:3pqdnY_sk4koztTN...@giganews.com:

You could also remove the cap on income for payroll tax, raise the
retirement age to 70 over 8 years, do the same with Medicare, repeal the
Bush/Obama taxcuts on everyone.

Go to a flat tax with only one deduction for federal poverty level.

[Jeff M]

On 9/7/2012 1:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
> news:3pqdnY_sk4koztTN...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 9/6/2012 8:41 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>> taxes."
>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>
>> Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can
> be
>> deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense. The President
>> is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall. That might make a good
>> cap figure.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You could also remove the cap on income for payroll tax,

Or eliminate ALL payroll taxes and fund the programs through the general
revenue, as I prefer, or assess "payroll" taxes on all income however
derived. The latter would pretty much "save" Medicare and Social
Security all by themselves.

> raise the
> retirement age to 70 over 8 years, do the same with Medicare, repeal the
> Bush/Obama taxcuts on everyone.

There are historical and actuarial arguments for doing that. But that
would be pretty tough on those doing hard physical labor for a living.
I don't want to think about being a firefighter/paramedic at age 69.

> Go to a flat tax with only one deduction for federal poverty level.

The problem of complexity in the tax code is caused by all the arcane
deductions and complex accounting rules created for influential special
interests, not its progressiveness. You look up your taxable income on
an easy to read chart, and that's all there is to that. It's simple.

[Alec Fraser]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA0C7744F9...@216.196.121.131...

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
4ax.com:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>taxes."
>>- Ronald Reagan
>
> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>

However, that isn't the law, is it.

>^^^
But DooDoo says that business owners CEO's (and other rich individuals) use
more INFRASTRUCTURE than anybody else.
How is that possible?
How does ONE billionaire personally use 90% more of it than you or I, to
make his claim reasonable to make them pay that much more in extra taxes?
Once billionaire can still one be in one plane, train, or automobile at a
time, and they pay dearly for their stuff, just like the rest of us.

As a small business owner, if I had to pay 90% of my earnings IN TAXES, I
would be eligible getting food stamps!

[Hawke]

On 9/6/2012 1:56 PM, Don Harris wrote:

Wrong. Also if it was right why would anyone in business complain about
taxes since they don't pay any? And who complains the most bitterly
about taxes? Businesses and the wealthy. So why do they complain when
they don't pay any. That doesn't make any sense.

Hawke

[Hawke]

Yeah, but just think of all the opportunities it would open up for the
people here to start new businesses when they move overseas. You also
raise protective tariffs on the ones who go overseas too. Make it hard
for them to sell here and make it easy for actual Americans to do
business here.

Hawke

[Alec Fraser]

"Hawke" wrote in message news:k2dhjm$rsf$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

>^^^^

How COULD a business pay anything?
Name ONE business that pays taxes where humans aren't involved.

[deep]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:25:58 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>taxes."
>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>
>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>
>
>However, that isn't the law, is it.

It should be. Point is, it makes no sense to tax business
transactions and operations. That much I will agree with. But it's
when CEOs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars with bonuses and
stock options while their workers have their pay and benefits cut
because of bad business. Tax the take-home pay of executives making
more than 1 million a year at a 90% rate. Don't tax their business at
all. That provides them with the incentive to invest their money back
in their business rather than pay themselves ridiculous sums. Make it
so they can't take hundreds of millions offshore to tax free havens.
Force them to reinvest in American business or else pay most of what
they make back into the country as taxes. The government can then use
that money to fund infrastructure projects putting people back to
work. Either way the American people win. Simple really. Too bad
the weathy run our government so unfortunately it will never happen.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Birdseed is too stupid to understand that those taxes can price a
company's products so high that no one can afford them, except
millionares. Foreign products don't have those taxes, which has already
taken too many former US jobs offshore.

Keep jacking up the business tax load and even more use companies
will close their doors, or only survive by selling nothing but imported
products.

[Gunner]

Nice! I like it!!

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:53:55 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:

>On 9/6/2012 8:41 PM, deep wrote:

>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"

>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>> taxes."
>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>

>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>

>Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can be
>deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense. The President
>is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall. That might make a good
>cap figure.

More control agendas?


Why not eliminate all income type taxes
except FICA, and have an asset tax with a
deduction the same for everybody.

That might eliminate a lot of paper
pushers that could get a real job where
they produce some thing useful.

[dca...@krl.org]

You also do not make any sense.

Cheers

[George Plimpton]

On 9/6/2012 6:41 PM, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"

> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>> taxes."
>> - Ronald Reagan
>

> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.

No justification for that, of course - well, none other than class envy
and low-achievers like you wanting to punish success.

High compensation is earned for creating high amounts of value. The
people who create the value *deserve* the great wealth. They *did*
build it.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"

<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>taxes."
>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>
>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>

>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.
>
>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>worsening the US economy.

I don't know if all would do that, but some might,
what the communist bastards need to learn that no
matter how poor an honorably man with dignity is,
he controls his life and no penalty of law can make
him do anything he doesn't want to do.

There have been men who, when mobs tried
to tell them how to run their business, simply locked
the doors and went fishing.

This isn't an arrogant thing, it is just human
nature, if a man isn't his own boss, he can't ever
be what he could be, and a nation of people not
their own boss ends up in a downward spiral.

[George Plimpton]

On 9/7/2012 12:23 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 1:56 PM, Don Harris wrote:
>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>> taxes."
>> - Ronald Reagan
>>
>
>
> Wrong.

A little bit it is, but not for the reasons you think. You don't know
anything about tax incidence. Economists know that stuff, not political
scientists and particularly not political scientists who got their
degrees from a backwater school after the age of 50.

> Also if it was right why would anyone in business complain about
> taxes since they don't pay any?

Business *owners* complain justifiably about taxes that destroy business
and take money out of their pockets. Even if it is the consumer who
pays most taxes on business, due to much of the tax being passed along
in the form of higher prices, it still destroys business: consumers buy
less due to the higher prices.

[George Plimpton]

On 9/7/2012 12:28 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 7:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>> news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>> taxes."
>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>
>> And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>> raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their
>> tax.
>>
>> In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>> worsening the US economy.
>
>
> Yeah, but just think of all the opportunities it would open up for the
> people here to start new businesses when they move overseas.

It doesn't.

[Alec Fraser]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:KtSdnewgat4bzdfN...@earthlink.com...

Alec Fraser wrote:
>
> "Hawke" wrote in message news:k2dhjm$rsf$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> On 9/6/2012 1:56 PM, Don Harris wrote:
> > "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
> > taxes."
> > - Ronald Reagan
> >
>
> Wrong. Also if it was right why would anyone in business complain about
> taxes since they don't pay any? And who complains the most bitterly
> about taxes? Businesses and the wealthy. So why do they complain when
> they don't pay any. That doesn't make any sense.
>
> >^^^^
>
> How COULD a business pay anything?
> Name ONE business that pays taxes where humans aren't involved.


Birdseed is too stupid to understand that those taxes can price a
company's products so high that no one can afford them, except
millionares. Foreign products don't have those taxes, which has already
taken too many former US jobs offshore.

>^^^^^

Keep in mind that it was DOODOO (the man-child that eats CostCo's Roast Beef
flavored dog food) that also agreed that one should not, CAN NOT tax a
business (!) , but JUST the "Individual" owners, "Individual" CEO's, AND
those PESKY WEALTHY "Individuals" at 90%! because THEY (as individuals)
use and abuse more "American Infrastructure" then others do!

I was stunned too, when he said that!

How DOES a single, wealthy person use more Infrastructure ?
Does one shit silver and gold coins, and clog the narrow sewer system where
he is? <---- sign me up, Edward "Ed" Lillywhite Norton! :)

The rich buy and ride in cars! (MORE taxes to them, regarding sales gas,
tires, registration , rental, insurance, tolls, etc...)

Do they buy houses? YOU BETCHA!
(same thing applies as seen above, except for tires, so replace that with
forms of OTHER taxes like property, sewer(where the rich people shit out
those coins) internet, phone, security. etc..

Take away 90% of ANY person's Income just because they are they owner of a
business, like DooDoo said? EGAD!

No reason to HAVE or develop a business, when you can't see and enjoy the
fruits one WORKS HARD to develop and HOPE to see it grow!

DooDoo is a retard!

Always was,. ALWAYS will be.

[George Plimpton]

He's not only a retard - he's the biggest crybaby ever. He always
sounds like he's about to start bawling.

[Jeff M]

On 9/7/2012 4:17 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:53:55 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2012 8:41 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>> taxes."
>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>
>> Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can be
>> deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense. The President
>> is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall. That might make a good
>> cap figure.
>
> More control agendas?

There's no "control agenda" involved. Don't be ridiculous. I don't
care how much businesses pay their senior executives. I just think
there ought to be a limit to how much the taxpayers subsidize their
compensation by allowing these sometimes absurd amounts to be deducted
as legitimate business expenses.

> Why not eliminate all income type taxes
> except FICA, and have an asset tax with a
> deduction the same for everybody.
>
> That might eliminate a lot of paper
> pushers that could get a real job where
> they produce some thing useful.

There are many paths to meaningful tax reform. Some are better than
others. None are likely to ever happen.

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:8jjk48pfd0rle98vulqnidb148hlfktc05@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:25:58 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>taxes."
>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>
>>
>>However, that isn't the law, is it.
>
> It should be.

Why?

Point is, it makes no sense to tax business
> transactions and operations. That much I will agree with.

Good, because some of that gets passed on as a cost of doing business.

But it's
> when CEOs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars with bonuses and
> stock options while their workers have their pay and benefits cut
> because of bad business.

I am against golden parachutes and believe that all companies should pay
on the merit pay system. Do good, you make lots of money. Do bad and
you take in the ass along with the rest of your company's employees.

Tax the take-home pay of executives making
> more than 1 million a year at a 90% rate. Don't tax their business at
> all. That provides them with the incentive to invest their money back
> in their business rather than pay themselves ridiculous sums.

IOW, make it hurt to run a business. That's a good way to create jobs.

Make it
> so they can't take hundreds of millions offshore to tax free havens.

Then start lobbying your congresscritters to change the tax laws.

BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.

> Force them to reinvest in American business or else pay most of what
> they make back into the country as taxes. The government can then use
> that money to fund infrastructure projects putting people back to
> work.

In any case, all that money the government uses comes from the private
sector. That is the engine that provides everything the public sector
runs on.

Either way the American people win. Simple really. Too bad
> the weathy run our government so unfortunately it will never happen.

Do you feel like a voice lost in the wilderness?

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:b0sj48hrj166cqg5n...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"

> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>taxes."
>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>

>>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.
>>
>>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>>worsening the US economy.
>>
>>

> You miss the point.

That you're dealing with fantasy rather than reality?

Oh, I get the point that what you say has little to nothing to do with
reality.

> Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for
> once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or
> services and pass the cost on to the public.

And you think taxing the owners instead would change that?

Free hint: If an owner isn't getting a large enough return for his
investment after taxes......then he's either going to close the business,
move it to were it's more profitable, or have the company increase the
profit margin by increasing prices.

None of those are good for the US economy or the American worker.


> So eliminate all profits
> an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
> the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year.

At which point they will take action to replace that lost income.

Oh, and how exactly as an advocate of a classless society justify your
desire to invoke classes and differences between the classes.

Seems rather......hypocritical....of you to do that given your strong
assertions that you want to promote a classless society were all are treated
equally.

Seems you were lying then, or you're lying now, or you're so confused about
your own beliefs that you don't know what you're saying.

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:brtj48hqcjag6tijs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:09:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>
>>>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>>>taxes."
>>>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>>
>>>>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>>>>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their
>>>>tax.
>>>>
>>>>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>>>>worsening the US economy.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for

>>>once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or

>>>services and pass the cost on to the public. So eliminate all profits

>>>an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
>>>the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year.
>>

>>Wrong. Everyone gets taxed at the same rate. That's the ONLY way
>>that's fair.
>
> It's fair because the wealthy use infrastructure more for their profit
> making than do the poor. They should be taxed at a higher rate to
> support the infrastructure they require for their business.

Please show that their use of infrastructure occurs at a greater rate per
tax dollar than poor people do.

Somehow, I suspect a person living on welfare, food stamps, WIC, Housing
assistance, and so on are going to be using more of the infrastructure per
dollar of taxes they pay than the richest person out there.

Anyway, I withhold judgment until you come up with some numbers to support
your assertion that the rich use more infrastructure than is represented by
the taxes they pay.

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in

news:ct6dnau3ZaMUotfN...@giganews.com:

> On 9/7/2012 1:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
>> news:3pqdnY_sk4koztTN...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2012 8:41 PM, deep wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>> taxes."
>>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>>
>>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>
>>> Or, at least cap the amount of senior executive compensation that can
>> be
>>> deducted [subsidized] as a legitimate business expense. The
President
>>> is paid about $400,000 per annum, as I recall. That might make a
good
>>> cap figure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You could also remove the cap on income for payroll tax,
>
> Or eliminate ALL payroll taxes and fund the programs through the
general
> revenue, as I prefer, or assess "payroll" taxes on all income however
> derived.

Which is how my flat tax would work. It is on **ALL** income no matter
from where derived with only one deduction for federal poverty level,
family of four.

The latter would pretty much "save" Medicare and Social
> Security all by themselves.

Pretty much.

>> raise the
>> retirement age to 70 over 8 years, do the same with Medicare, repeal
the
>> Bush/Obama taxcuts on everyone.
>
> There are historical and actuarial arguments for doing that. But that
> would be pretty tough on those doing hard physical labor for a living.
> I don't want to think about being a firefighter/paramedic at age 69.

Age 69 today was age 50 not that long ago. Life expectancy (and overall
vigor and health) has been constantly improving.

>> Go to a flat tax with only one deduction for federal poverty level.
>
> The problem of complexity in the tax code is caused by all the arcane
> deductions and complex accounting rules created for influential special
> interests, not its progressiveness. You look up your taxable income on
> an easy to read chart, and that's all there is to that. It's simple.

Yep. You could do your taxes on a postcard. How much did you make?
Here is your federal poverty level deduction, here is the tax rate. Here
is what you owe.

[George Plimpton]

On 9/7/2012 2:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:8jjk48pfd0rle98vulqnidb148hlfktc05@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:25:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
>>> 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>> taxes."
>>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>>
>>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> However, that isn't the law, is it.
>>
>> It should be.
>
> Why?

There's no valid and equitable reason why it should be.

>> Point is, it makes no sense to tax business
>> transactions and operations. That much I will agree with.
>
> Good, because some of that gets passed on as a cost of doing business.

Some, but not all. The determination of tax incidence is not something
most people with no background in economics can easily grasp. It
depends on the market and the elasticities of demand and supply.

>
>> But it's
>> when CEOs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars with bonuses and
>> stock options while their workers have their pay and benefits cut
>> because of bad business.
>
> I am against golden parachutes and believe that all companies should pay
> on the merit pay system. Do good, you make lots of money. Do bad and
> you take in the ass along with the rest of your company's employees.

That's a separate issue.

>
> Tax the take-home pay of executives making
>> more than 1 million a year at a 90% rate. Don't tax their business at
>> all. That provides them with the incentive to invest their money back
>> in their business rather than pay themselves ridiculous sums.
>
> IOW, make it hurt to run a business. That's a good way to create jobs.

This is why it's correct to say that Obama and illiberal "liberals"
don't understand *anything* about business.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:42:48 -0400, "Alec Fraser" <G...@bass.gov> wrote:

>sewer(where the rich people shit out
>those coins)

Wouldnt that be considered a toll, like a pay toilet? That means that
is off the block, because they would be directly paying for the sewer
system that they use. Unlike the poor, who shit and never pay any
taxes.

[RD Sandman]

George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote in news:F-
adncbJt_Xd89fNn...@giganews.com:

> On 9/7/2012 2:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:8jjk48pfd0rle98vulqnidb148hlfktc05@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:25:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in
news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
>>>> 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>>> taxes."
>>>>>> - Ronald Reagan
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, that isn't the law, is it.
>>>
>>> It should be.
>>
>> Why?
>
> There's no valid and equitable reason why it should be.
>
>
>>> Point is, it makes no sense to tax business
>>> transactions and operations. That much I will agree with.
>>
>> Good, because some of that gets passed on as a cost of doing business.
>
> Some, but not all.

Correct.

The determination of tax incidence is not something
> most people with no background in economics can easily grasp. It
> depends on the market and the elasticities of demand and supply.

And a few other things depending on what you are pricing.

>>> But it's
>>> when CEOs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars with bonuses and
>>> stock options while their workers have their pay and benefits cut
>>> because of bad business.
>>
>> I am against golden parachutes and believe that all companies should
pay
>> on the merit pay system. Do good, you make lots of money. Do bad and
>> you take in the ass along with the rest of your company's employees.
>
> That's a separate issue.

The golden parachute is, the merit pay isn't.

>> Tax the take-home pay of executives making
>>> more than 1 million a year at a 90% rate. Don't tax their business
at
>>> all. That provides them with the incentive to invest their money
back
>>> in their business rather than pay themselves ridiculous sums.
>>
>> IOW, make it hurt to run a business. That's a good way to create
jobs.
>
> This is why it's correct to say that Obama and illiberal "liberals"
> don't understand *anything* about business.

So true.....

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k2dq2a$ddb$1...@dont-email.me:

Or by outsourcing to reduce costs including labor.

> None of those are good for the US economy or the American worker.

Well, the first option is debatable. I agree on the latter point.

>> So eliminate all profits
>> an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on
>> the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year.
>
> At which point they will take action to replace that lost income.

Or not spend the money to start up the business. Perhaps they will all
move to the public sector and then who will pay for them?

> Oh, and how exactly as an advocate of a classless society justify your
> desire to invoke classes and differences between the classes.
>
> Seems rather......hypocritical....of you to do that given your strong
> assertions that you want to promote a classless society were all are
> treated equally.
>
> Seems you were lying then, or you're lying now, or you're so confused
> about your own beliefs that you don't know what you're saying.

It just sounds like one of Dudu's meanderings.

[Ignoramus11166]

On 2012-09-07, dca...@krl.org <dca...@krl.org> wrote:

Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.

Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
consumers and to the owners of the business.

That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.

i
Who owns a business and pays taxes

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:8jjk48pfd0rle98vu...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:25:58 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:k4ki48h1psmhobirsqd9p0ui17d7ukcdr6@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>taxes."
>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>>
>>
>>However, that isn't the law, is it.
>
> It should be. Point is, it makes no sense to tax business
> transactions and operations. That much I will agree with. But it's
> when CEOs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars with bonuses and
> stock options while their workers have their pay and benefits cut
> because of bad business.

So basically you're pissed because you can't dictate how companies operate.

>Tax the take-home pay of executives making
> more than 1 million a year at a 90% rate.

So if a CEO makes $1 Million....suddenly he's going to be making less than a
middle manager because you have a burning desire to stick it to the rich.

Now....what do you think is going to happen?

Do you think you will get a good CEO for less take home pay than you give a
middle manager?

Or...will CEOs start marking 10 times as much....making you even more pissed
at how much CEOs are paid, and reducing the ability of the company to
increase pay for the lower ranks, and in a few years you will be back
bitching how people making over $100 million should be paying 99.9% in
taxes.

> Don't tax their business at
> all.

You are. If you impose a tax on the employees, then the company has to
increase wages to pay that tax and provide an adequate take home pay or no
one is going to work for them.

> That provides them with the incentive to invest their money back
> in their business rather than pay themselves ridiculous sums.

A good CEO may be worth the money paid, but that's an issue between the
board and the CEO....not for you to dictate that you think he's not worth
it.

> Make it
> so they can't take hundreds of millions offshore to tax free havens.

What if the money is made offshore?

Then what?

Going to make it illegal for them to bank offshore?

> Force them to reinvest in American business or else pay most of what
> they make back into the country as taxes.

Force.....interesting how it always comes down to that when failed
government policy is to blame.

> The government can then use
> that money to fund infrastructure projects putting people back to
> work.

Really? Like the massive infrastructure projects being done by the Chinese?

http://tinyurl.com/3kra22v

> Either way the American people win.

No, Americans lose....the best talent will go overseas to avoid the
oppressive taxation. Companies unable to pay the necessary pay for these
talents will follow. The economy will suffer. All the big business will be
overseas, and all we will have will be little distributers all carefully
crafted to remain below the income cap and will be remotely run by the high
paid officials.

> Simple really.

Has to be, otherwise you wont understand it.

>Too bad
> the weathy run our government so unfortunately it will never happen.

Good thing that some people in our government still have intelligence....

[Alec Fraser]

"Gunner" wrote in message
news:f6sk485fsh90cbt1t...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:42:48 -0400, "Alec Fraser" <G...@bass.gov> wrote:

>sewer(where the rich people shit out
>those coins)

Wouldnt that be considered a toll, like a pay toilet? That means that
is off the block, because they would be directly paying for the sewer
system that they use. Unlike the poor, who shit and never pay any
taxes.

>^^^^^^

The LAZY(aka losers/ Democrats/Occupiers) just shit in the park and the
side walks like a mutt, never wiping , never caring about how they smell or
look, then complain why they can't be hired as even greeters at a 7/11.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:11:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gunner wrote:
> >>
> >> The Great Cull will remove them AND any medical expenses. Afterall...a
> >> bit of barbed wire or a single round to the back of the skull is very
> >> very cheap.
> >>
> >> Unless you have a good way to sterilize them while they are penned
> >> and ready to be hooked to a plow.
> >
> >
> > Plasma cutter, and a hot branding iron to cauterize the wound. ;-)
>
> Nice! I like it!!

And a nail gun to give them their Penicillin shots, even if they are
allergic to it. ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Alec Fraser wrote:
>
> Wouldnt that be considered a toll, like a pay toilet? That means that
> is off the block, because they would be directly paying for the sewer
> system that they use. Unlike the poor, who shit and never pay any
> taxes.

You really are too stupid to live. Sewers are paid for by taxes on
the water you use. In some places you pay it, even where you can't
connect to the sewer system.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>
> Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
> consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
> transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.
>
> Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
> consumers and to the owners of the business.
>
> That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
> businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
> of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.
>

> Who owns a business and pays taxes

You'd whine like crazy, if you had to pay inventory taxes and be
audited every quarter. You're a junk dealer. Try it on a manufacturing
business that does millions of dollars worth of business per quarter.

[Ignoramus11166]

I would have to report my inventory at my cost.

As a "junk dealer", as you gracefully put it, it so happens that my
inventory costs me next to nothing in comparison to how much I sell it
for. So, had I been subject to inventory tax, I would not have to pay
all that much money.

Any business that does millions of dollars worth per quarter, should
expect plentiful paperwork and compliance costs, I still do not see a
problem. While I am a procrastinator and hate paperwork, I have to say
that it is manageable for me.

I find that running a small realspace business is easy and fun, but
very time consuming.

i

[Scout]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ov2dnV7yGNIFH9fN...@earthlink.com...

Actually, sewers are generally paid for by actual bills on your water usage,
either rolled into the total or as a separate line on the bill.

Never heard were sewers were being paid for by taxes.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ignoramus11166 wrote:
> >>
> >> Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
> >> consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
> >> transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.
> >>
> >> Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
> >> consumers and to the owners of the business.
> >>
> >> That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
> >> businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
> >> of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.
> >>
> >> Who owns a business and pays taxes
> >
> >
> > You'd whine like crazy, if you had to pay inventory taxes and be
> > audited every quarter. You're a junk dealer. Try it on a manufacturing
> > business that does millions of dollars worth of business per quarter.
>
> I would have to report my inventory at my cost.
>
> As a "junk dealer", as you gracefully put it, it so happens that my
> inventory costs me next to nothing in comparison to how much I sell it
> for. So, had I been subject to inventory tax, I would not have to pay
> all that much money.

You would, if you had to pay tax on the expected resale value on
every unsold item, till it finally sold. That's one reason people sell
you stuff at Sanford & son prices.

[pyotr filipivich]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> on Fri, 07 Sep 2012
19:28:59 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Maybe he should agitate for a Washington State type "Business and
Occupation" tax - which is based upon gross receipts.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Property taxes on a home without a sewer connection, about 45 years
ago. then they changed it to part of the water bill, whether you had a
sewer connection, or not. It was a really screwed up system, like when
the city of St. Louis wanted the Cable TV companies to pay for all trash
collections, since Cable TV was a 'luxury'.

[Michael A. Terrell]

pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> on Fri, 07 Sep 2012
> 19:28:59 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
> >
> >Ignoramus11166 wrote:
> >>
> >> Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
> >> consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
> >> transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.
> >>
> >> Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
> >> consumers and to the owners of the business.
> >>
> >> That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
> >> businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
> >> of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.
> >>
> >> Who owns a business and pays taxes
> >
> >
> > You'd whine like crazy, if you had to pay inventory taxes and be
> >audited every quarter. You're a junk dealer. Try it on a manufacturing
> >business that does millions of dollars worth of business per quarter.
>
> Maybe he should agitate for a Washington State type "Business and
> Occupation" tax - which is based upon gross receipts.

Or just try living in the real world. He is so out of touch with
reality, that it's scary.

[Scout]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:UaqdnSWww8WSOdfN...@earthlink.com...

Hmmm... 45 years ago... not really current or relevant.

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:05:05 -0600, deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"

><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"
>>> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
>>>>taxes."
>>>>- Ronald Reagan
>>>
>>> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
>>

>>And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
>>raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their tax.
>>
>>In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
>>worsening the US economy.
>>
>>

>You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for

>once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or

>services and pass the cost on to the public. So eliminate all profits

>an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on

>the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year. 90% on
>personal income. So if a corporation wants to keep their money
>invested in the corporation and are using it appropriately to grow
>their business and create jobs then no taxes. As soon as they pay
>their CEO 1.5 million a year and bonuses and profit sharing in the
>millions, then that money is taxed at a very high rate. No
>exceptions, no deductions for personal income. Flat rate for
>everyone. Of course it will never happen. The wealthy and their
>lawyers control the system and they like it just the way it is.

Just what is the purpose and the justification
for taxing high earners at a high rate (even after
a deductible)?

Yo'all are bitching about capital gains being
taxed at a lower rate, why, don't you think owning
something for years before selling it should give
the owner a break, and a reason to sell it, rather
than keep it forever?


Why don't you just ask everybody to give
all their money didn't one of the Jones boys do that?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

This all boils down to the new leftist mantra.

"You didn't make that. We helped you. Therefore, your income belongs
to us."

"We'll take as much of it as we can."

[Scout]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:lqcl481i750i5d7p2...@4ax.com...

Hell, why hasn't Dudu sold what he doesn't need and give the money to
someone less well off?

Seems he can't walk the walk...

[Michael A. Terrell]

Other than the fact that they will find any way they can, to charge
you to get rid of your waste.
>

[deep]

No, it's a very commonly held opinion on that's what we need to do to
recover our economy and at the same time repair our crumbling
infrastructure. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

[Ignoramus11166]

On 2012-09-08, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-09-07, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
>> >> consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
>> >> transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.
>> >>
>> >> Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
>> >> consumers and to the owners of the business.
>> >>
>> >> That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
>> >> businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
>> >> of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.
>> >>
>> >> Who owns a business and pays taxes
>> >
>> >
>> > You'd whine like crazy, if you had to pay inventory taxes and be
>> > audited every quarter. You're a junk dealer. Try it on a manufacturing
>> > business that does millions of dollars worth of business per quarter.
>>
>> I would have to report my inventory at my cost.
>>
>> As a "junk dealer", as you gracefully put it, it so happens that my
>> inventory costs me next to nothing in comparison to how much I sell it
>> for. So, had I been subject to inventory tax, I would not have to pay
>> all that much money.
>
> You would, if you had to pay tax on the expected resale value on
> every unsold item, till it finally sold.

No one does value inventory at some imaginable "expected resale
value". It is valued at cost.

> That's one reason people sell you stuff at Sanford & son prices.

That has never been a reason, as far as I knew. They either lazy, or
stupid, or sell for cash, or out of business at auction.

i

[deep]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:47:47 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:


>BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
>taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.
>

Conservatives love to bring up that point, bt the bottom 50% don't pay
much taxes because they have no money. You simply need to tax those
who have been making all the money, enriching themselves at the
expense of the rest of society.

You may consider the ability to bleed everyone else dry as a virtue,
but ethically it isn't. Greed is not a virtue. It is one of the
seven deadly sins.

>
>> Force them to reinvest in American business or else pay most of what

>> they make back into the country as taxes. The government can then use

>> that money to fund infrastructure projects putting people back to
>> work.
>

>In any case, all that money the government uses comes from the private
>sector. That is the engine that provides everything the public sector
>runs on.

Exactly. And without good jobs there is no demand for goods and
services from the public sector because no one has any money.

That's the part about the oligarchy that baffles me. They seem to be
carrying out an all out war on the middle class but at the same time
are destroying their markets. One would think they would be smarter
than that.

>
> Either way the American people win. Simple really. Too bad

>> the weathy run our government so unfortunately it will never happen.
>

>Do you feel like a voice lost in the wilderness?

Oh yea.

[Ignoramus11166]

On 2012-09-08, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>

Yeah, you probably think that I must be out of touch with reality,
since I do not watch Fox News daily.

But as far as I am concerned, I am out every day buying real assets,
from a variety of people or businesses, with my own money, taking 100%
of risk on all my purchases, and then selling the same assets to real
customers who have the right to return them if not satisfied.

In addition, I have normal costs and overhead of doing business.

In the light of the above, to me, I have a good sense of reality if I
can make enough money under the above conditions.

i

[George Plimpton]

On 9/7/2012 8:29 PM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:47:47 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
>> taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.
>>
> Conservatives love to bring up that point, bt the bottom 50% don't pay
> much taxes because they have no money. You simply need to tax those
> who have been making all the money, enriching themselves at the
> expense of the rest of society.

You keep saying that bit of bullshit as if it means something. You want
to believe that those who make a lot of money are doing so unfairly -
that they're doing something illicit and don't deserve to make the money
in the first place, which is why you believe it is just to confiscate it
from them.

You are wrong. Your belief is baseless. They earn a lot of money
because they do something that creates a lot of value. Because they
create a lot of value, they *deserve* the money, and they deserve to
keep close to all of it.

Tax rates should be low.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:20:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

In both arms!!!

Though..that would make it easier to hook em to a plow...humm..they
couldnt pick at the straps...yes!!!!


Gunner

[Scout]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ovWdnXHNke3PNNfN...@earthlink.com...

Interesting, since my wastes are disposed of for free.....

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:a1el48p0ft0b2vsvf...@4ax.com...

So you're advocating class warfare, punative taxation, and inequality.

And you call yourself a democratic socialist......

Well, that always seems to be how it ends up isn't it?

Steal from the rich to give to the poor until everyone is poor.

[Gunner]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 02:02:28 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>>
>> No, it's a very commonly held opinion on that's what we need to do to
>> recover our economy and at the same time repair our crumbling
>> infrastructure. It's the only thing that makes any sense.
>
>So you're advocating class warfare, punative taxation, and inequality.
>
>And you call yourself a democratic socialist......
>
>Well, that always seems to be how it ends up isn't it?
>
>Steal from the rich to give to the poor until everyone is poor.

Damned shame the US was formed as a Republic..with no room for
Democratic Socialists in the paperwork.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:20:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gunner wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:11:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Gunner wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Great Cull will remove them AND any medical expenses. Afterall...a
> >> >> bit of barbed wire or a single round to the back of the skull is very
> >> >> very cheap.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unless you have a good way to sterilize them while they are penned
> >> >> and ready to be hooked to a plow.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Plasma cutter, and a hot branding iron to cauterize the wound. ;-)
> >>
> >> Nice! I like it!!
> >
> >
> > And a nail gun to give them their Penicillin shots, even if they are
> >allergic to it. ;-)
>
> In both arms!!!
>
> Though..that would make it easier to hook em to a plow...humm..they
> couldnt pick at the straps...yes!!!!

Crazy glue will fix that problem. ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

Mine are, now. I have a well, and a septic tank. At my last house,
I had to pay the city for water, and that included the sewer fees, since
they were convinced that every drop they delivered was returned with the
human wastes. It was clearly stated that way on the monthly bill.

Solid waste, on the other hand: I have to pay the county's landfill
fee, whether I send anything there, or not. If I do, they add tipping
fees for anything other than household trash or lawn clippings.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Really? Get an IRS agent pissed off and he will value your inventory
at what it should have cost you, not what you paid for it. When we
would buy a large batch of parts that were on sale, we had to inventory
them at the regular wholesale costs since they were no longer on sale.
More than one business has been physically audited and hit with a tax
bill so large that they had to liquidate the company to pay it off. The
value is what the IRS states, not what you claim.

> > That's one reason people sell you stuff at Sanford & son prices.
>
> That has never been a reason, as far as I knew. They either lazy, or
> stupid, or sell for cash, or out of business at auction.

Sigh. Things have been writtten off, and they have to dispose of
it. If they get a large chunk of cash for what is written off as scrap,
it raises LOTS of questions.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-08, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> on Fri, 07 Sep 2012
> >> 19:28:59 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
> >> >
> >> >Ignoramus11166 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Businesses are not people, they are pass through entities. They do not
> >> >> consume, because they are not consumers. They exist to move and
> >> >> transform materiel, provide services etc and make money.
> >> >>
> >> >> Taxes that are collected from business are ultimately passed on to
> >> >> consumers and to the owners of the business.
> >> >>
> >> >> That said, the society cannot live without collecting taxes, and
> >> >> businesses can be a most efficient avenue for collecting certain types
> >> >> of taxes, so I personally cannot see why not tax the businesses.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who owns a business and pays taxes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You'd whine like crazy, if you had to pay inventory taxes and be
> >> >audited every quarter. You're a junk dealer. Try it on a manufacturing
> >> >business that does millions of dollars worth of business per quarter.
> >>
> >> Maybe he should agitate for a Washington State type "Business and
> >> Occupation" tax - which is based upon gross receipts.
> >
> >
> > Or just try living in the real world. He is so out of touch with
> > reality, that it's scary.
>
> Yeah, you probably think that I must be out of touch with reality,
> since I do not watch Fox News daily.

Why do you always bring up Fox news? I can't remember the last time
I saw it, since I don't get it on basic cable. Probably over ten years
ago?

> But as far as I am concerned, I am out every day buying real assets,
> from a variety of people or businesses, with my own money, taking 100%
> of risk on all my purchases, and then selling the same assets to real
> customers who have the right to return them if not satisfied.
>
> In addition, I have normal costs and overhead of doing business.
>
> In the light of the above, to me, I have a good sense of reality if I
> can make enough money under the above conditions.

Iggy, I've known a lot of guys like you, and a lot end up in trouble
with the IRS after about five years of wheeling and dealing. The ones
that didn't, had a good tax lawyer and listened to what they were told.
As the old saying goes, 'Ignorance is no defense of the law'. Several
of those people lost their homes, and spent time in the federal pen.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:47:47 -0500, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
>>taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.
>>
>Conservatives love to bring up that point, bt the bottom 50% don't pay
>much taxes because they have no money. You simply need to tax those
>who have been making all the money, enriching themselves at the
>expense of the rest of society.

LOL. I have always loved your fourth grade understanding of the world.
Yes, we'd all be well off if it weren't for those darn rich people
taking all the money. If they didn't, why, there would be more left
for the rest of us! Burger flippers would be making $50 an hour!

>You may consider the ability to bleed everyone else dry as a virtue,
>but ethically it isn't.

Yet you're willing to take 90% of someone's income. Hmmmmmm.

90%

>Greed is not a virtue. It is one of the seven deadly sins.

It's also a plank of the Democratic platform.

>That's the part about the oligarchy that baffles me. They seem to be
>carrying out an all out war on the middle class but at the same time
>are destroying their markets. One would think they would be smarter
>than that.

Or perhaps the more likely explanation is that you're too stupid to
understand what's going on, and you've got on your knees, unwrapped
Obama's Tube Sausage of Revenge Against the Rich, swallowed his load
of spunky madness, and convinced yourself that taking even MORE from
"the rich" is going to make everything better.

Meanwhile, Obama's hands are on your head urging you to begin again.

[deep]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 02:02:28 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>>

>> No, it's a very commonly held opinion on that's what we need to do to
>> recover our economy and at the same time repair our crumbling
>> infrastructure. It's the only thing that makes any sense.
>
>So you're advocating class warfare, punative taxation, and inequality.
>
>And you call yourself a democratic socialist......
>
>Well, that always seems to be how it ends up isn't it?
>
>Steal from the rich to give to the poor until everyone is poor.
>

Non sequitur.

[deep]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:36:11 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

You should go back to school and try getting an education this time.

[John B.]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:57:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

I'm wondering about your situation. Inventory is normally classed as
an asset and valued at procurement cost. Just exactly as any other
asset.

I guess I'd have to ask "why is your company different?"

[Ned Simmons]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:57:19 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Really? Get an IRS agent pissed off and he will value your inventory
>at what it should have cost you, not what you paid for it. When we
>would buy a large batch of parts that were on sale, we had to inventory
>them at the regular wholesale costs since they were no longer on sale.
>More than one business has been physically audited and hit with a tax
>bill so large that they had to liquidate the company to pay it off. The
>value is what the IRS states, not what you claim.
>

I don't think you understand the IRS's interest in inventory. Please
explain it to us.

--
Ned Simmons

[Michael A. Terrell]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> >deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:47:47 -0500, RD Sandman
> ><rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
> >>taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.
> >>
> >Conservatives love to bring up that point, bt the bottom 50% don't pay
> >much taxes because they have no money. You simply need to tax those
> >who have been making all the money, enriching themselves at the
> >expense of the rest of society.
>
> LOL. I have always loved your fourth grade understanding of the world.
> Yes, we'd all be well off if it weren't for those darn rich people
> taking all the money. If they didn't, why, there would be more left
> for the rest of us! Burger flippers would be making $50 an hour!
>
> >You may consider the ability to bleed everyone else dry as a virtue,
> >but ethically it isn't.
>
> Yet you're willing to take 90% of someone's income. Hmmmmmm.
>
> 90%
>
> >Greed is not a virtue. It is one of the seven deadly sins.
>
> It's also a plank of the Democratic platform.

Plank? It's the entire structure.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I closed my business several years ago. I was spending more time
filling out forms and dealing with govenment agencies thatn doing
productive work. The doors were closed, the assets disposed of, and the
employees out of work.

[George Plimpton]

No, what he said makes perfect sense and flows logically from what
preceded it.

[George Plimpton]

My education, including my academic instruction, is superior to yours in
every dimension. You have no education at all, and your instruction was
haphazard and shabby.

Your position that the rich should forfeit most of the value they create
is immoral and bad for the country.

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:06el48984maedr41ikmuimjcf8fuod4gcr@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:47:47 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, what do you think is a good income tax rate for the 47% who pay no
>>taxes today? Or the top 50% which pays 97% of them.
>>
> Conservatives love to bring up that point,

I'm not a conservative but I do like to bring that point up.

bt the bottom 50% don't pay
> much taxes because they have no money.

So, the government sends them some.

You simply need to tax those
> who have been making all the money, enriching themselves at the
> expense of the rest of society.

Now, the top 1% has 21.3% of the total income but pays 38.8% of the
income tax and 58.6% of the Corporate income taxes. They also hold 34.6%
of the total net worth and 42.7% of the financial wealth. Ergo, if you
look at those percentages, the top 1% is paying income taxes commensurate
with their total net worth and financial wealth.

What problem do you have with that? Simply the fact that in your mind
they could afford to pay more?

> You may consider the ability to bleed everyone else dry as a virtue,
> but ethically it isn't. Greed is not a virtue. It is one of the
> seven deadly sins.

Yep, but they are paying those taxes in proportion to their station in
life.

>>> Force them to reinvest in American business or else pay most of what
>>> they make back into the country as taxes. The government can then
use
>>> that money to fund infrastructure projects putting people back to
>>> work.
>>
>>In any case, all that money the government uses comes from the private
>>sector. That is the engine that provides everything the public sector
>>runs on.
>
> Exactly. And without good jobs there is no demand for goods and
> services from the public sector because no one has any money.

And the more taxes and barriers you place on developing those good jobs
the less of them will be generated. Why should I bust my hump to make
lots of money if all that will happen is that the government will take it
away from me and make it more difficult to earn future money? If I
wanted to work for the government I would be a civil servant.

> That's the part about the oligarchy that baffles me. They seem to be
> carrying out an all out war on the middle class but at the same time
> are destroying their markets. One would think they would be smarter
> than that.

They are definitely smarter than you. Have you even tried to run your
own business?




--

If you see a bomb technician running....
Do try to keep up with him.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in
news:56fm48159ies28btv...@4ax.com:

If you have one, you should start using it.

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:a1el48p0ft0b2vsvff1jlee5lcg2m1k147@
4ax.com:

To those of you who don't think things through. Have you ever run a
business or tried to start one?

[RD Sandman]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in news:75em48tish6crhaj9063gic8gqga3hhodu@
4ax.com:

Not in your scenario.

[Tom Del Rosso]

> On Sep 7, 3:23 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

> > On 9/6/2012 1:56 PM, Don Harris wrote:
> >
> > > "You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
> > > taxes."
> > > - Ronald Reagan
> >

> > Wrong. Also if it was right why would anyone in business complain
> > about taxes since they don't pay any? And who complains the most
> > bitterly about taxes? Businesses and the wealthy. So why do they
> > complain when they don't pay any. That doesn't make any sense.

Even the Brookings Institution found by their research that business taxes
come out of payroll. You don't understand why they would complain about
that? Because they want to pay people as much as possible to attract
talent.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

[Tom Del Rosso]

Ignoramus11166 wrote:
>
> Any business that does millions of dollars worth per quarter, should
> expect plentiful paperwork and compliance costs, I still do not see a
> problem. While I am a procrastinator and hate paperwork, I have to say
> that it is manageable for me.

But it's too plentiful. Are you aware that 12% of GDP is spent on
regulatory compliance? That really comes from everyone because it raises
all costs.

[Curt Welch]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:29:44 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
> >news:k4ki48h1psmhobirs...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:56:35 +0200, "Don Harris"

> >> <dha...@dont-email.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects
> >>>taxes."
> >>>- Ronald Reagan
> >>

> >> Then you tax business owners and CEOs 90% income tax no deductions.
> >
> >And they will simply either move their business over seas, or they will
> >raise the price of their products and allow the consumer to pay their
> >tax.
> >
> >In the end, all you will do is move more jobs and factories overseas,
> >worsening the US economy.
> >
> >

> You miss the point. Don't tax businesses at all. You are correct for

> once. They will just add that to the cost of their products or
> services and pass the cost on to the public.

That is the way it should work. Someone has to pay for the government. We
can debate how large a government we want, but as long as you have a
government someone has to pay for it. So we must decide how to cost is
shared.

The most "fair" way is to just divide the cost by the number of people, and
make everyone, kids and adults alike, pay an equal share. That adds up to
about $12K per person.

But then we decide that most kids don't have their own money, so the
parents would just have to pay for them. This just raises the costs of
having kids. But if you are a mom, abandoned by a looser father, with 3
kids, you suddenly have to pay $48K in taxes, as well as feed and support,
and care for your children. Do we want to put that much burden on that
Mother? Most of us agree we do not, and that it's "fair" for us to make
other people pay her tax burden.

Once we take any step away from sharing the tax burden equally, we become
socialistic. We are now implementing, "From each according to his ability,
to each according to his need". All that is left to do, is determine how
to measure need and ability.

So, right off the bat, we decide one good way to measure "ability" is by
income. So instead of a true flat tax, we make a socialistic tax based on
ability, and define the tax as a percentage of income. This solves the
problems of taxing kids, because most kids don't have an income. And if
they do have an income, well, then they get to pay taxes.

But, that's not socialistic enough for us. Everyone has a "need" to eat,
and have shelter. If someone is not making enough income, to eat and
provide basic shelter for themselves, then we feel we can give them a tax
break as well. So we reduce the tax burden on low income people further,
and raise it on everyone else. So we could tax the poor at 5% and everyone
else at 10%. But if we pick one number to define "poor", we have the
problem that once someone earns one dollar more than the "poor" limit, they
suddenly have to pay 100's of dollars more taxes. It creates an income
"wall" that people will be motivated to not cross. So instead of doing it
that way, we make it a slow graduated curve, where only the extra dollars
are taxed at the higher rates. And we end up with the progressive income.
Now, we just have to debate endlessly how to shape that curve.

But then we turn to businesses. Any profit made by the business remains in
the business. The owners of the business get that profit. But for any
business besides a sole proprietorship, that income is not taxed until it's
distributed to the owner as a dividend. So owners can (and do) make tons of
money, without being taxes.

The workers get taxed instantly on any money they "make" from their work.
If they want to save for retirement, they have to pay taxes on the money
first, and then put it in the bank to save it. If they want to invest the
money they make into a business, they have to pay taxes first, and then on
what's left, they can buy stock, or start there own business. But people
that make their money, by owning a business, don't have to pay themselves
all the money they have made. They can just pay themselves the money they
need for their bills, and not take the money they plan to save for
retirement out of their business. They don't have to distribute all the
profit to them, pay taxes on it, and then re-invest the money into their
business by putting it back in.

This creates a tax loophole for anyone that makes their money by investing
in their own business. They get to save money for retirement, without
being taxed, like everyone else. They get to invest their profits back
into their own business, without being taxed on it. They don't get taxed,
until they take their money out.

One of the best ways to make a lot of money, is to build and operate a
business. So these people getting tax loopholes, are also the people in
our society that tend to be some of the wealthiest. And since we have
already decided to implement a government based on "for each according to
his ability" we have totally failed our mission if we let many of the most
able in society, get a huge tax loop hole.

There are different ways to close that loophole, but none of them work real
well when we have already set up a progressive income tax. But we
basically close it by taxing corporate profits. So any money the owners
leave in the business as "savings", instead of distributing to the owners,
gets taxed anyway. The problem, is what rate do we tax it at? If there's
one owner, to be fair, we should calculate the taxes as if, he had
distributed all the profit to himself as income. So if he paid himself
$50K in wages, and the business made $50K in profit he left in the
business, the total taxes paid should be as if he had paid himself $100K of
income. In other words, the corporate profits for his business should be
declared on his personal income tax. But that's not all that fair that he
has to pay taxes on money he didn't get. So the business would likely pay
the tax. For partnerships, this is how it is done. But for corporations,
which can have 1000's of owners, things get too messy, and we have decided
to forgo worrying about trying to maintain the "fairness" defined by the
progressive income curve, and just tax corporations profits at a flat
(generally high) rate.

So, to not tax corporations, would be to give some of the wealthiest people
in society a way to defer paying their taxes as long as they want to.
That's not considered fair, so we tax corporate profits. At the same time,
some corporations, by being lucky enough to have positioned themselves in
the right place, at the right time, end up making a ton of money one year.
The next year, they might loose money. Their ability to help pay their
fair "share" will change from year to year. To not tax them them more when
they have lots of extra money, would again, be failing to to follow the "to
each according to their ability".

We can debate what rate to tax corporations at, but to not tax their
profits at all, would be stupid, and highly unfair to everyone that doesn't
make their money by owning a business. It would be declaring that tax
burden should be decided baaed on the type of work you do, instead of being
based on your ability to contribute to the common good. So we could say
taxi drivers must pay more taxes, than farmers, just because we like
farmers more than we like taxi drivers. Taxing based on social popularity
is a dangerous society to create but it's exactly what we would be doing,
if we let owners of corporations get a free tax break by not taxing the
income generated by their business.

> So eliminate all profits
> an use taxes on business, and replace it with a very high tax rate on

> the personal income of anyone making over 1 million a year. 90% on
> personal income.

Then the business owners simply won't distribute their profits to
themselves. They will get their business to buy them stuff so they don't
have to be taxed. They will get the business to buy their car for them,
and pay their gas for the car. They will turn their vacations into "work
trips", and get the business to pay for it. They will make many of their
meals, "work meals", and get the business to pay for them. They get $500K
in "perks" from the business, tax free, and then only have to play
themselves $500K salary, so they avoid massive amounts of taxes. That
would not work.

You must tax corporate income, (aka profits) if you are also going to tax
private income. Ideally, they would be taxed the same, but due to the
decision to have a progressive tax we can't. But we can at least tax them
at a high rate, so as to greatly reduce the size of the loop hole.

> So if a corporation wants to keep their money
> invested in the corporation and are using it appropriately to grow
> their business and create jobs then no taxes.

Apple is making tons and tons of money, and putting it into a bank. They
aren't using it to grow their damn business. If you eliminated corporate
taxes, this would not just be the exception happening at the most
successful business, it would be to norm. Most businesses would just hoard
their profits and invest in the business, only when they could find "sure
bets" to invest in.

It's not particularly good to have people, or businesses, hording their
money, The money should be kept in circulation. The more hording there
is, the more instability we create in our economy. Hording creates this
boom bust business cycles, and the depressions and bubbles when they go to
deep or too high. Life is better for everyone, if we stabilize these
cycles, and create a more even flow of commerce, and eliminate the bubbles,
and the depressions. Taxing corporate profits helps add a little more
stability. To not tax corporate profits, would amplify the instability,
which is not as good.

> As soon as they pay
> their CEO 1.5 million a year and bonuses and profit sharing in the
> millions, then that money is taxed at a very high rate. No
> exceptions, no deductions for personal income. Flat rate for
> everyone. Of course it will never happen. The wealthy and their
> lawyers control the system and they like it just the way it is.

Which brings us to the next big social problem - wealth inequality.

The Republican view is that wealth is distributed based on merit. Those
that work harder, deserve the fruits of their labor. That on the surface
seems very sound and obvious. But hidden under the surface of that message
is deep layers of selfishness. The flip side of having the right to keep
the fruits of your labor, is the removal of any moral responsibility to
help society. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a "value" that
says you get to keep the fruits of your labor, while at the same time,
holding a "value" to help your fellow man. These two values are in direct
conflict with each other, and we must strike a balance somewhere, or just
give up one of the values.

The Republican party has become so are so addicted to this view, that they
have even turned it upside down, and taken the stance that wealth
distribution DEFINES merit. That is, if you make lots of money, it proves
that you have merit. That is, it proves, that you deserve to have the
great wealth. This is a natural and simple human weakness called greed.
No one is immune to it's dangers. Anyone can fall prey to the mistake. We
come into large amounts of money, and then we feel like, if we got the
money, it must prove we "deserved" the money. We might rationalize with
some totally stupid statement like, "God rewarded our hard work". That is
NOT why people get rich. To get rich, requires a large amount of sweat,
combined, with large amounts of luck. When there are 4 billion people all
competing against each other over the control of the wealth, how much any
one person ends up with, has a lot to do with what path your life took,
which has as much to do with things that happened before you were even
born, as it does, with what you do in your life.

We have to decide, as a people, whether we really believe in democracy or
not. Do we believe in the concept that all people should have equal
rights? Do we want to be a society that rewards, and cares for, people, or
a society that rewards, and cares for, those lucky enough to find
themselves on a path, that makes them "winners".

The Republican party, is all about shaping society to benefit all the
"winners". It makes no difference how, or why, you got to be a winner, but
once you are one, then this society is here to take care of you. Having
money, is what defines your "merit" to be a "person" in the Republican
society. The Republicans don't want a democracy. They want a society
where the "winners" have all the control, and reap the benefits of society.

Their view is not absurd. It comes from a real need. That need, is the
need to keep people motivated to contribute. If people are not motivated
to work hard, and reap what they can in the "race" of life, they wont do
it. We people really are simple beasts. We do things that give us
rewards. To be a good hard worker, we have to be trained to work hard.
And we have to receive rewards for our hard work. If we don't receive
rewards, we won't work. So those that work hard must be fairly rewarded.
If they feel they are working harder, and being more productive than
someone else, they must be rewarded more, or else they will lose their
motivation to work.

To make our society as strong as possible, we must motivate everyone to
produce their best effort. Which means, those that are the most
productive, must get more, than anyone less productive. This requirement,
is the simple and obvious foundation of the republican position.

But there is a serous, offsetting social problem here, that Republicans
seem blind to. Or at least, they fail to acknowledged. And that's the
greed problem. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. The more reward
someone gets, the more they talk themselves into believing they are a God
among men, and that they they deserve and REQUIRE, a higher status in life.
They more wealth and power they amass, the more they believe they are above
democracy, and that the entire concept of democracy, and equality amount
all humans, is an absurd concept.

Wealth inequity, DESTROYS democracy. You can not maintain a democracy, if
you allow wealth inequity to grow too large. The further the people at the
top distance themselves from the pinons at the bottom, the more they talk
themselves into believing they are gods, and deserve to be where they are
in society.

So we have this problem, of needing to keep people motivated, by rewarding
them for their hard work, but at the same time, we must keep wealth
inequality from growing too large.

The nice thing about people and their motivation however, is that the size
of the reward is irreverent. People will work just as hard for $1, as they
will for $1,000,000. What is important, is that their reward must be fair,
RELATIVE to other people. If one person works hard, and gets $1, where the
other person works just as hard, and gets $1,000,000, that uneven reward,
will kill the motivation of the person that gets $1. If they work side by
side at the same company, the guy being paid $1 will just quit and say
"fuck it", I'd rather starve than work for you for $1.

So, as a society, large amounts of wealth inequality are not needed to keep
people motivated to be productive. Almost any level of inequality will
keep people as motivated, as long as the wealth distribution is always
fair, relative to what others in society are getting. The only rule that's
really important, is that greater productivity, must always produce greater
reward, and that two people with equal levels of productive, should get
roughly the same reward.

As long as our society is structured to reward hard work, there is no need
to allow large amounts of wealth inequity to exist. The larger the wealth
inequality, the further we get away from a democracy, and the closer we get
to losing our democracy, and returning to simple rule by the strong.

And here's the kicker most people have no awareness of. Technology growth,
increases wealth inquiry.

Technology is always growing. We are constantly inventing new tools, new
businesses, new business structures, new materials. As technology grows,
wealth inequality grows. As wealth inequality grows, we get further away
from any sort of notion of a democracy - a society that supports people,
not a society built to support the strong while the weak suffer.

Technology creates wealth inequality, because it allows increasing amounts
of power, to reside in the hands of the few. He who knows how to makes
swords, controls the power. He who knows how to make a plow, and defend
his land, owns the power. He who knows how to build Facebook, controls the
power. As technology grows, individual power grows. The best business men
of the 17 century, could only dominate their local area. But now, with
advanced communication and transportation available, the best business men,
get to control world markets.

As technology grows, the power shifts further way from hard work, and
towards, the ownership of technology. People become more powerful, because
they own and know how to use the right technology, instead of simply for
working 16 hours a day.

To maintain a working democracy, we must make social changes to offset the
growth in wealth inequality, created by our constantly advancing
technology. We must not allow some members of the society to grow super
wealthy, as others starve. We must keep the balance, between poor and
rich, down to a reclaimable level. The more we fail to do that, the more
the rich think they are Gods with more social merit, then than the poor in
the gutters. And the more they think that, the more they will become
morally bankrupt, in the views about humanity.

The Europeans wiped out the native Americans, not because they were less
moral than we are today, but because they had too much power over them.
The Europeans had control of more advanced technologies. The strong, will
always abuse the weak. It's autonomic human nature. The only way to stop
it, is to LIMIT THEIR POWER. Which means we must as a society, cap wealth
inequality, if we are to maintain our democracy.

Technology caused society to shift from farmers, to factory workers, and
allowed the factory owners, and industrialists, to become super rich. To
offset this trend of wealth inequity, and save our democracy, we changed
society to created anti-trust laws. We formed labor unions, to give
workers the power to extort profits from the owners. We changed tax
structures to force the wealth to carry a larger tax burden. All of these
things, and more, were needed, to offset the effects of advances in
technology, creating larger amounts of wealth inequality.

It never ends. Technology keeps advancing, and it keeps driving us to
larger amounts of wealth inequality. We have to keep finding new ways to
offset it, or we will lose our democracy. The end game here, is what
happens in 30 to 40 years, when technology advances to the point that is
surpasses all human ability, and humans get completely replaced in the
workforce, by automation. There will be no jobs left, and there will be no
"labor" side to the equation. It will be 100% capital. The only way to
make any money, is to own the technology. But just like in the game of
monopoly, you can't maintain a "fair" wealth, unless you are the one that
owns the MOST resources. The few in the lead, in the game, will dominate,
and force everyone else, to sell out all there resources, and be broke.
Wealth inequality will reach an all time high, with a small handful of
people owning all the "squares" on the board, and everyone else bankrupt.

In the US, we have increasingly turned to greater government services, and
entitlements, to offset the wealth inequity. That is one approach, but
it's has it's problems. It comes with huge amounts of overhead to
administer the programs (nothing the government does is very efficient),
and it raises all sorts of questions of fairness in society. In addition,
they can create negative incentives for being productive when they are not
done correctly.

We need wealth distribution to fix the wealth inequality problem, and it
needs to keep growing in magnitude, to keep offsetting the growing trend
that is created by advancing technologies. We either do this, or we lose
our democracy. We have to chose.

We have reached a point were making the "rich" pay more for government
services really isn't working anymore. It's causing the government to
grow too large, just because the rich have too much money. We really don't
need many of these government services, and we can't just keep adding more
and more government services, as our round about way of fixing wealth
inequality.

There is another, much better solution, but it's a change most people don't
understand the need for, and most people aren't willing to accept, because
they don[t understand the larger picture of the real "evil" we are fighting
here. The real evil we fight, is wealth (and power) inequity.

It's what people tried to fix with various forms of communism, but in their
attempt they broke the very important motivation system that was the engine
of all the wealth production to start with. And with our lessons learned
that these pure communism doesn't work, they have now become "evil" instead
of the "solution".

But that's just short sighted. Everyone that understands what we are
dealing with, understand we live in a highly socialistic society already.
We believe it's good, to help the needy, and we expect the strong, not to
dominate society with their will, and their personal beliefs, but instead,
to be the largest contributors to our democracy.

The better fix to the wealth inequality problem, is to implement a basic
income grantee. It's a simple, redistribution of wealth, to everyone. It
works by taxing everyone, based on ability, and distributing some level of
cash, to everyone, equally. That is, in my view, it's the purest form of
"from each according to ability, and to each according to need". It
assumes, that we are not equally strong, and that some of us, will always
do a better job of "pulling the cart" than others. So those that can do
more, will always be expected to do more for society. But it also assumes
everyone has equal basic needs. So we distribute some amount of cash, to
everyone, equally.

All our current government welfare, and entitlement programs could be
replaced with a pure form of wealth re-distribution like this. It should
have no means testing. You are entitled to the basic income, only because
you are a human, living in a society, which has as it's main purpose, the
goal of making life better for all humans. There is no requirement that
you "work" for your right to receive the income.

We need to do this, to offset the constantly growing wealth inequality
problem. It could be structured, to replace all the current systems we are
using.

We are so wealthy, as a nation, we could afford to send a check to
everyone, in the rage of $500 to $1000 or more a month. Everyone would get
it. The wealthy, the poor, the sick, the unemployed, students, homeless,
everyone.

We could switch to a fixed percentage sales, and income tax structure for
example, instead of having a progressive tax. The progressive tax was only
added, to indirectly make the strong carry a larger social burden, and
allow the the weakest among us, to get a break. But with everyone
receiving a basic income, no one needs to get a tax break. The most basic
needs, are already taken care by society for everyone. No one will go
hungry, or fear having to be homeless.

We could eliminate most forms of welfare. No one needs to get food stamps,
when everyone has a basic income. We no longer would have to waste all the
money and resources, administering these huge government programs, that
determines who gets welfare, and who doesn't. We don't need government
unemployment insurance, if everyone is getting a basic income that is a
true safety net for everyone.

We don't need minimum wage laws, if everyone is getting a basic income.
Businesses will no longer be strapped with paying for welfare, indirectly,
in the form of minimum wages. If a company wants to offer someone $1 a day
to work sweeping floors, they can hire the guy to do that, if they can find
someone willing to do the work. People will no longer expect to get their
"welfare" from their employer, and business can be free to create an
unlimited amount of low end jobs.

Corporate profits still need to be taxed like personal income. But the tax
rate can be the same. If it's 25% for example, it makes no difference if
the profit is left in the business, or distributed to the owner. It will
get taxed at 25% either way. Tax rates will no longer get in the way of
business decisions over whether money is kept in the bushiness, or
distributed to owners, or to workers.

Everyone will have a guaranteed safety net for life. So this will reduce
people's desire to "panic" and start saving money when bad things happen,
and spinning the economy down into a depression. People will be more
likely to keep spending, because they have a guaranteed income.

Consumer demand will be stringer, and more evenly distributed across the
population. This will lead to stronger growth in small businesses, because
every community will now have a constant flow of cash to spend.

Such a system creates no negative incentive to work. Anyone that works,
even if they get only $1 a day, will have more money to spend, than if they
didn't work. You never have something taken away, because you decided to
work, or work harder. The more you work, and the more productive you are,
the more money you will have. With a flat tax percentage, you also don't
feel like you are climbing a hill as you make more money. You pay the same
tax rate, whether you make $1, or $1 billion. The first dollar of income
is taxed as much as the last. Everyone, has incentive, to try and make as
much money as they can.

All businesses will compete on equal footing, because they all pay the same
taxes on their profits. Takes may be higher, but employees wont need to be
paid as much, since they all have a base income for "free", so it will be
an offsetting effect. Not to mention the fact that employers will be free
to pay any rate they want.

Switching to a basic income, to replace all our old social problems,
greatly reduces the size of the government. All the government needs to
do, is collect a simple flat income tax, and distribute, a fixed check to
everyone. This can be done with far less overhead, than the complex mix of
tax and social problems we now use to create wealth distribution. And we
don't need to add new government programs, if we feel the need to offset
more wealth inequality growth. We just increase the tax rate, and increase
the payout to everyone.

Unions, as a form of labor extorting money from capital, won't be needed
any longer. They still exist to support workers rights, safety, worker
education, and the like, but they don't need to be the tool for wealth
sharing anymore.

This gets the government out of the business of providing "welfare"
services. They create welfare, just by collecting and redistributing the
money. The people then get to fully choose how they want to spend it, or
save it. They are no longer forced to take the form of "welfare" the
government wants to provide them.

Also, because everyone receives the same distribution, no one is made to
feel inferior, for receiving welfare. It's no longer something to be seen
as "bad" but just a simple right, for being a human, and being a good
citizen, and following the laws.

Wealth redistribution is required, in order to maintain a democracy, in the
face of growing technological advances. As technology advances, the
distributions must also advance to offset growing wealth inequity. We need
to maintain enough inequality, to keep everyone motivated to be as
productive as they can, but not so much, that the elite feel justified to
cheat, and just take power away from the people, with their strength and
greed. We have been doing it by all sorts of back-handed approaches, which
have become a disaster of complexity, and expense, with massively complex
tax laws, and too many social programs to count. Most of it, can be
removed, and replaced, with one simple set of flat taxes, and basic income
guarantee distributions.

This is not a new idea I've dreamed up. The idea has been around for a very
long time, and has a lot of strong supporters. The state of Alaska has a
form of it in place using their oil reserves as the source of wealth to
fund it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

A basic income guarantee, along with removing minimum wage, would virtually
solve the unemployment problem. There would always be jobs available, for
anyone that wanted to work.

There will be some percentage of people that would just become bums and not
work at all, because they were getting "free" support. But that would be
the exception, not the rule. When given an opportunity to improve their
lives, most people will work to do so. And when everyone has a safety net
to fall back on, and more local customers with guaranteed money to spend,
far more people will be willing to risk starting their own small business.
No longer do you need to start the next Walmart sized business, in order to
be competitive in the economy.

In addition, with a safety net to fall back on, people can have more
freedom to the work they want to do, instead of the work they have to do,
in order to eat. No more would woman end up as prostitutes, just because
they had no other good options for work. They would be prostitutes, only
because they wanted to be a prostitute. No longer, would people feel stuck
in their job, afraid to explore alternatives, out of the fear of losing
everything. When you are in a job, and the boss is an ass hole, you can
tell them to fuck off, and just walk away, because you will always have the
basic income to fall back on.

If you want to create true freedom, and power to the people, give them a
basic income.

100 years ago, a basic income was not an option. Everyone had to work
there asses off, just to produce enough food, to keep everyone alive. Even
then, most people died young from hard work. Today is a very different
story. All our advanced technology makes it very easy, to produce enough
food to feed everyone, and give them a place to call home, even if it's
only one small room with a cot to sleep on. We can, and should, eliminate
poverty in our country.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

[Ned Simmons]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:37:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"John B." wrote:

>> I'm wondering about your situation. Inventory is normally classed as
>> an asset and valued at procurement cost. Just exactly as any other
>> asset.
>>
>> I guess I'd have to ask "why is your company different?"
>
>
> I closed my business several years ago. I was spending more time
>filling out forms and dealing with govenment agencies thatn doing
>productive work. The doors were closed, the assets disposed of, and the
>employees out of work.

I guess you showed them.

Unless you're in the Superfund remediation business, or some other
activity that requires lots of oversight, "I closed my business
because of government paperwork," is victim-speak for a bad buiness
plan, lack of business, laziness, or an excuse to shut down an
enterprise you've lost interest in.

I've made my living running small manufacturing and engineering design
businesses for 30 years, as a sole proprietor, partner, stockholder in
an S corp, and as the sole stockholder in an S corp. I've never spent
more than a very small percentage of my time "filling out forms and
dealing with govenment agencies." Right now, the only assistance I use
is an accountant to prepare my annual tax returns, and I'm quite
confident the remainder takes up less than 1% of my time.

--
Ned Simmons

[Gunner]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:46:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

But there is something strangely satisfying about using a nail gun
with a big spike in it.......

[John B.]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:37:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

What does that have to do with valuing assets for tax purpose?

[Ignoramus25336]

On 2012-09-08, Ned Simmons <ne...@nedsim.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:37:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John B." wrote:
>
>>> I'm wondering about your situation. Inventory is normally classed as
>>> an asset and valued at procurement cost. Just exactly as any other
>>> asset.
>>>
>>> I guess I'd have to ask "why is your company different?"
>>
>>
>> I closed my business several years ago. I was spending more time
>>filling out forms and dealing with govenment agencies thatn doing
>>productive work. The doors were closed, the assets disposed of, and the
>>employees out of work.
>
> I guess you showed them.
>
> Unless you're in the Superfund remediation business, or some other
> activity that requires lots of oversight, "I closed my business
> because of government paperwork," is victim-speak for a bad buiness
> plan, lack of business, laziness, or an excuse to shut down an
> enterprise you've lost interest in.

As a frequent visitor of failed businesses, I hear a lot of lame
excuses, and "too much paperwork" is similarly lame.

> I've made my living running small manufacturing and engineering design
> businesses for 30 years, as a sole proprietor, partner, stockholder in
> an S corp, and as the sole stockholder in an S corp. I've never spent
> more than a very small percentage of my time "filling out forms and
> dealing with govenment agencies." Right now, the only assistance I use
> is an accountant to prepare my annual tax returns, and I'm quite
> confident the remainder takes up less than 1% of my time.

I spend a lot of time with paperwork, but most of it is private, such
as freight or insurance. A big and most annoying part is government
related paperwork, it takes perhaps 3% of my time.

i

[Scout]

"deep" <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message

news:75em48tish6crhaj9...@4ax.com...

IOW, you don't want to discuss your display of hypocrisy?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ned Simmons wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:37:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

> ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote:
>
> ?
> ?"John B." wrote:
>
> ?? I'm wondering about your situation. Inventory is normally classed as
> ?? an asset and valued at procurement cost. Just exactly as any other
> ?? asset.
> ??
> ?? I guess I'd have to ask "why is your company different?"
> ?
> ?
> ? I closed my business several years ago. I was spending more time
> ?filling out forms and dealing with govenment agencies thatn doing
> ?productive work. The doors were closed, the assets disposed of, and the
> ?employees out of work.

>
> I guess you showed them.
>
> Unless you're in the Superfund remediation business, or some other
> activity that requires lots of oversight, "I closed my business
> because of government paperwork," is victim-speak for a bad buiness
> plan, lack of business, laziness, or an excuse to shut down an
> enterprise you've lost interest in.
>
> I've made my living running small manufacturing and engineering design
> businesses for 30 years, as a sole proprietor, partner, stockholder in
> an S corp, and as the sole stockholder in an S corp. I've never spent
> more than a very small percentage of my time "filling out forms and
> dealing with govenment agencies." Right now, the only assistance I use
> is an accountant to prepare my annual tax returns, and I'm quite
> confident the remainder takes up less than 1% of my time.

Good for you. My first business was closed when I was drafted. How
do you plan for that, when you were told by 'Uncle Sam' that your health
was so bad that you could never serve? Another was harassed by a local
politician who told me 'No man has the right to own a business'. That
SOB forged paperwork to have my property rezoned from commercial to
residential. He forged impound tickets and stole two of my vehicles
while I was gone on a service call. I ended up having to sue him, and
to work to keep him from being re-elected after 20 years in office. By
then, I had very little cash left, and I was sick of the whole fucking
mess. How would your manufacturing business cope if they rezoned your
building and refused to let you work out of it? How about if you
weren't allowed to remove any tools or other assets? I was audited
every quarter by the State of ohio for reporting low sales tax, in spite
of being in a B to B business where my customers were either tax exempt,
or paid use taxes directly to the state? That was two to three working
days, every quarter. I had to write a lot of bids, and follow up on
them to meet the laws. At the end, I was so sick that I was bedridden
for over six months. Tell me how you plan for all of that? Assets
stolen, then my time was tied up in court to recover them, followed by
constant harassment by assholes in office who wanted the property to
open a beer joint. It was on a busy highway, with limestone haulers &
steel trucks passing 24/7.

My annual tax returns only took half a day to fill out, and I could
do them after normal business hours. I did industrial electronics,
large commercial sound systems, and any other electronics that no one
else in the area could do. I was on call around the clock for emergency
repairs, and rarely failed to repair something on time, even if it was
50 years old. For instance, I would get a call from a school that
something wasn't working, at 6:00 AM, and have it working by the time
school started. We would install & repair equipment in paper mills that
were in operation, 24/7 without getting in their way and generally
finished ahead of schedule. manufacturing is a walk in the park, by
comparison. That's why I spent the last four years of my work at
Microdyne. We built telemetry equipment for the Aerospace industry &
military. I had a reputation for being a pain in the ass, because I
wouldn't take no for an answer. If I saw a problem I found the
solution, and confronted whatever department that had to deal with it.
OTOH, when a critical job came through, they would pull me from whatever
assigned work I had and tell me to make sure it was done properly.
Projects like a communications system for the Space Station. It was a
one off modification of our 700 Series base chassis, with the required
modifications to make it space qualified. It passed final test on the
first pass, Lockheed martin accepted it, and it passed all their tests.
They mounted it into one of the custom rack modules for the ISS, and it
passed all of NASA's tests before it became a permanent part of the ISS.