Letter of the day: Disgusted in Diamond Bar
It’s the theme of the day. I’m sure the tinfoil-hatters will find a way to blame it on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. From the letters to the editors page of the Los Angeles Times, another taxpayers goes Galt:
I have employed about 50 people during the last 20 years, and my family’s taxable income is about $300,000. In order to avoid paying a higher percentage of taxes on all of my income, I will decrease output, lay off some staff and still end up keeping the same amount.
I have no incentive to hire people or expand my business, because the more I make, the more President Obama will take to expand government. This discourages expansion of the private sector. It will backfire with disastrous consequences for all.
It is repulsive that Obama is being allowed to take this country backward by pickpocketing the very people who run the private sector through their energy, money and creativity.
Kay Santos
Diamond Bar
Hat tip: American Power, who shines a spotlight on left-wing grievance-mongers who have attacked wealth-producing commenters on this blog.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy - ticked off in Diamond Bar, CA | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Waking up from a nightmare; America’s harsh reality « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Cheat Seeking Missiles » Firing The Success Retro-Rockets
- This is was never a stimulus plan but a TAX and SPEND plan! | Robert Opyd (baghdad-bob)
- The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Going John Galt?
- Atlas is shrugging « Right Minded Online
- Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Thoughts About The Whole “Going Galt” Meme
- Going John Galt: Stop–UPDATED « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Tea Party
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 Seconds
The original letter stated…
…and many liberals here jumped all over that in their comments…
Using the Tax Bracket calculator at moneychimp:
Income brackets for 2009 (married, filing jointly):
Assuming $350,000:
taxes = $93,321 (26.66% of income)
Since Obama has said that his tax plans will affect only those making $250,000+, I’m making the assumption he’s just going to change the endpoints on the tax brackets. If he actually increases the upper bracket, the amounts will increase even more.
Assuming $350,000…
…after adjusting $372,950 top level down to $250,000:…
taxes = …
(8,025-0)X.10 = $802.50
(32,550-8,025)X.15 = $3,678.75
(65,725-32,550)X.25 = $8,293.75
(137,050-65,725)X.28 = $19,971.00
(250,000-137,050)X.33 = $37,273.50
(350,000-250,000)X.35 = $35,000.00
TOTAL TAXES: $104,217 (an increase of $10,896).
…which is 29.78% of income
Now, unless I’m totally mistaken, 29.78% if GREATER than 26.66%!
Picture that… the business owner who posted the letter really DOES know more than liberals.
The conservative members on this thread will await apologies from the math and logic challenged (listed above) in 3… 2… 1…
Oh, who am I kidding…
And careful Felix,
I made a similar statement last week and got jumped all over.
dominigan:
Please see #74. We already dealth with your point.
PS. I am not a liberal.
domingan,
I am sorry you wasted so much time. You obviously missed the part where she said she would earn less and still take home the same amount, thus obviating your tortured defense (because $104K is more than $93K, unless I am totally mistaken).
*dealt
Sorry, typo.
Why don’t chap,lgm and all the other tax lovers just offer to pay the difference in the marginal tax rate and then businesses can still hire, earn more–all due to the benevolence of those who love to pay higher taxes. If the tax rates go up-you pay the gubmint more money. If the tax rate goes down–you keep more and pay the gubmint less. Point is—people don’t want to pay this gubmint any more taxes to fund us into bankruptcy and socialism.
OMG – lgm, chap, zeroangel, zzyzg are correct. I’m starting to worry about myself.
I would rather make more money and give it to the groups that can get these clowns out of office!
NC BLUE:
Oh for goodness sake!
Since when does pointing out that someone like “Kay” is either ignorant or a fraud represent support for raising any taxes?!
Honestly.
I’m not really a flat tax fan, a progressive income tax that recognizes the highest earners can afford a higher percentage of their taxes, while perhaps not rigid conservative orthodoxy, seems ok with me.
BUt when the progressive income tax gets so progressive that half the nation pays no income tax at all, and the highest couple of percent pay almost half, it is getting punitive.
BTW, I believe y’all were discussing the Laffer curve, the tax rate that maximizes government income. 0%, obviously while business thrives, revenue is zero, 100%, since there is no incentive to work, there is no economic output, revenue again is zero. It seems like the maximum revenue rate is well below 30%.
BTW, people seem to assume the entepreneurial class/small business owner is guaranteed a certain income. In fact, there are elements of risk and reward. My industry, oil, has high rewards traditionally because it is high risk. Commodity prices fluctuate wildly, not every well drilled will ever produce, many more will produce at far lower rates than expected, all nature of things.
Even with marginal rates, if a new business, project, oil well, whatever, that carries risk will be less profitable because of higher taxes, than the spectrum of risk and reward will shift so some new businesses or expansion of old businesses will never happen, new people won’t be hired, new wealth won’t be created.
Besides the change on marginal rates, Obama is also seeking to punish the higher earners with changes to the mortgage interest deduction and charitable giving deductions.
Of course, as far as charities feeding the poor, helping abused women get back on their feet, helping women in crisis pregnancies, running hospitals for children, etc., they are in competition with government, so it is no wonder why Obama is declaring war on charity.
OK, Ms. Santos has made a mistake on the tax structure.
Does that change the underlying point, that punishing success tends to demotivate the people that provide jobs and create wealth?
When Joe the Plumber asked his question we heard a lot about how small business owners don’t make that kind of money and thus had nothing to worry about. Now that a lot of small business owners are preparing to go Galt we’re suddenly hearing that they make so much more than $250,000 that it’s not realistic that they’ll scale back to fall under that line.
Apparently $250,000 is a magic earnings point that’s really, really, really hard to reach and once you do reach it you just go shooting past into the economic stratosphere with little effort at all.
Sure, Kay could solve the problem by paying herself less and spread the extra money around to her employees but why do that when she can just work less and have that much more time to enjoy life?
I didn’t vote for Obama, but I didn’t vote for McCain either. McCain supported TARP, and I seem to recall he had some sort of tax-financed foreclosure relief plan on the burner too. Right now he’s happily churning out a plan to circumvent the Constitution, and the Republican minority, by devising a new line item veto scheme.
We were hosed no matter which of those two idiots won.
For years I’ve been ignoring the left on issues of war, torture, intelligence and civil liberties. I’ve ignored them because they were drawing conclusion based on “facts” that were provably wrong. When it became clear that they were arguing in bad faith they didn’t change their opinions, they just dug in further. It is because of that I regard them with well-deserved contempt.
We owe it to ourselves and our country not to be like that. When we’re wrong we have to admit it, promptly, and modify our positions and arguments so that they reflect reality.
In this case the woman writing the letter is clearly misrepresenting the situation. If we want to put forth an argument about diminishing returns or not wanting to fund socialism we should do so. But relying on exaggeration (or outright falsehood) for our arguments will only make us become what we despise.
I’m still scratching my head over how Obama doesn’t need to know the price of a stock in order to make his decision on a purchase.
Ed:
I tend to agree here.
That’s it! I was trying to remember the name of that curve earlier as I was looking for it on wiki. Thank you for reminding me. In any case, I remember once seeing a parody of it (what I was trying to find) that represented it as a twisted and confused jumble in the center. Point is, it’s not so clear cut (except at the extreme ends).
I am not sure where the maximum revenue rate is, but I have no doubt it probably is different for different societies.
In any case, good post!
Ahhh… I do apologize for missing…
That is not correct.
Obama’s tax plans will increase the overall taxes against the total as a percentage of income.
However, I wonder if there are some business issues we’re missing. Some of her statement may be more probable if we consider the business big picture. Many times, businesses lay off employees and still maintain nearly the same level of productivity, since employee functions with higher ROI are usually kept, while “softer” functions are picked up by others.
Also, if the business is incorporated, they will be double taxed. And with Obama talking about raising taxes on businesses…
Sorry if I was too hasty, but you seemed to imply that it is highly unusual for a business to weigh the opportunity costs of continued production and investment, without considering increases in tax liabilities. I assure you, it isn’t.
My overall point is, Kay may be genuine and is correct in her premise that businesses often weigh the efficacy of increased and/or maintained investments, over increased liabilities – especially when effective and marginal rates have been modified.
ALL this argument is moot because we know EVERYONES taxes will be increased in one way or another. The over 250,000’s will simply get hit harder.
Here, Chap and LGM… maybe if I quote from a popular 1999 movie (seeing it is from Hollywood and all:
Just like Peter, The Rich and The Productive are learning from this President and this Congress that, if you do just enough to keep going, you avoid the “8 bosses” visiting you. Just so long as they keep de-incentivizing the output work, we all will keep producing just enough not to be fired.
Otherwise, we are all just a bunch of slaves. You do understand that concept, right? Slavery? The institution that Democrats wrote in to the Constitution? The institution that Democrats started the Civil War over? The subjegation of man and his wills to that of an overriding power, only to benefit and support that overriding power, and at expense to life and property of those they are forcing to produce?
Get it?
Which will simply be passed on in higher prices.
What I want to know is, just where all this jealousy is coming from? Seriously. All of those morons on the linked site, as well as the trolls here do nothing but come across as so unbelievably jealous that they are violent.
What purpose does punishing and even criminalizing people who have money and are successes serve?
Once you have punished and penalized people who own businesses and hire people to the point that they now find it no longer worth the effort and trouble of staying in business, thus being made to fire everyone in their employ, what does that do? How will you be better off?
What is it inside you that is keeping you from going out and getting your own business started? There are franchises you can buy into that cost no more than $5000 or less. It would then be up to you and how much time and effort you put into said business as to whether or not it became successful.
What is it within your personalities that has decided that it is better for everyone to be poor and wanting than it is to aspire for more and to become wealthy?
What part of Socialism, this “plan” Obama and the Democrats have for America, where the playing field is equal and everyone has the same amounts as everyone else allows for Human Nature…the thing that makes NORMAL people want to better themselves, their environment, their conditions etc.?
Where along your life path, did you come up with the belief that anyone would want to excel and exceed in their career…say a physician…would want to spend the time, effort, energy etc. to better themselves, their knowledge in their field etc., if there was no reward for doing so?
Do you honestly believe that people who are doctors would spend the extra time and energy, effort and sweat it would take to become a specialist in something like Oncology if they were not allowed to ask for more pay for their knowledge and expertise? Are you actually that stupid?
Take a look at the Soviet Union during the heydays of Communism. What advancements did they make in ANYTHING on their own? What advancements did they make in architecture, science, medicine? When you look at the cities of the former U.S.S..R., where is the beauty? Where was the smiling, happy people? Were they to be found in the blocks long lines to get bread, eggs, and toilet paper? Were they found in the businesses where they were forced to work where the State told them to and not where they wanted?
What part of the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, or any other Socialist/quasi-Communist country do you find to be beneficial to civilization as a whole?
If that way of life was so perfect, such a utopia, then why were people risking their lives to escape it? Why are people strapping themselves to anything that floats to get away from it? Why did thousands of people stand in a public square and face down their military to achieve it? Why is it that it has failed every single time it has been attempted?
What is it that has saved Red China from complete collapse? Was it more and more Communism and Socialism? Or was it the introduction of Capitalism and Free Markets? What is it about North Korea that you find so attractive that you think it will work here?
Gstaad?
I Googled this phrase and it took me to a bunch of “Internet numbers” that were all about Obama Cabinet picks…
James Felix:
Right on!
dominigan:
The relevant point is about diminishing returns. It was mentioned earlier in the comments.
DBNinKY:
James Felix encapsulated my point well. I understand the point about diminishing returns and business risk. This does not change the fact that either Kay is ignorant or disingenuous. Therein lies my sole issue here.
My last post vaporized, so here’s the gist of it:
To all those who make less than $250k and think Kay is wrong:
Her tax rate as outlined by dominigan is increased by 3.12 %. Please send me a check each payday for 3.12% of your pay and see if the same work for less money is as acceptable as you claim it to be.
You’ll be doing Obama’s work by helping to spread the wealth.
I’ll be expecting your check or an admission of error, but expect I’ll receive neither.
Bravo, Dominigan! BTW, where’s your Law-/CPA office located? I know several business partners who could use a your services -
You beat me to it.
Thank you for doing the math.
I’m assuming it is correct, as I do not have the time to check the calculations!
Dont ya think Santos’ letter is a little passive/aggressive? If she just hunkers down, who will give the $$ to get these jokers out? We need more $$ not less to beat the Obama machine.
But because the additional income is more than $10,896 she is still taking home more money for doing more work. Not as much more as she deserves, but still more. The letter is composed to imply that earning 250k will net you less money than earning 249k, which isn’t true. That’s the argument they’re saying is disingenuous.
BTW, the Obama trillion dollar deficits may not be financeable just by selling treasuries, even at fairly high rates. The Federal Reserve may buy Treasuries, and their reserves are low. But they can print money. Lots of money.
I’m pretty sure the end of bracket creep was a Bushian innovation, and will end with Obama.
And Obama’s war on the oil and gas industry, and his plan for carbon cap and trade, means higher prices for everybody.
crashemt:
Ok, to be fair, the Democrats and Republicans weren’t even around back then.
From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
How generous of you to presume that those folks simply misunderstood.
Correct.
I often wonder that myself. In my practice I deal with roughly 150 households that have a net worth of over $2 million, and all but 7 of them are self made.
If Obama’s core constituency spent as much time building themselves up as they do trying to drag others down GDP would go through the roof, to everyone’s benefit.
I won’t hold my breath till that happens though.
Obviously heartfelt and well said!!
(OK, you can ride on my private jet again.)
Elitism…
Wholeheartedly agree. Despite what the liberal blog might think, I’m certainly not in the $250k group, but I hope one day I will be. That’s why I work hard now.
This is the bottom line. Someone will have to pay for the $2T and counting that this administration is spending like mad.
The liberal theory is if you attack those big ol’ nasty rich people, no one will really care. After all, they’re all so rich, why should they care if the government siphons a bit more from them?
Since when did wealth become equal to evil or bad?
Even if the 2% statistic is accurate so what? That’s still 6 million people (based on 300 million US population). That’s not just Bill Gates and a few of his closest pals.
Those 2% employ tens of millions more. If this administration truly wants to create private sector jobs, they should be incentivizing the “evil” 2% to make it easier for them to hire more people, not punishing them with diminishing returns.
Sure, Kay got the facts wrong for saying “all of” her income instead of “1/6 of my income”. At the end of it all, she’ll have less after taxes money on her $300k under this plan than she did last year. Depending on how her business is structured, that might mean she has to lay someone off to stay at the same after taxes income she had previously. So the effect isn’t as big because of the $250k, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t an effect.
Some of the arguments I’ve seen here make sense if you’re not making over $250k now but will be in the near future. What about when you’re a business owner and already over that amount? That’s still an impact.
Please don’t forget all the other taxes though. The total marginal rate is nowhere near 35%. It’s much much higher.
It’s easy when you are using other people’s money.
I can see where this will go. Diamond Bar will be required to hire more people and expand his payroll or, face the consequences of tax and regulatory practices aimed at his business uniquely. If he dissolves his business his sale will be taxed at 90% +. Or, he will be forced to sell his business via the artifice of an IRS tax lien during which the agents will negotiate a more palatable solution to his tax problems if he sells his tax-burdened business to a minority buyer, and finance the purchase. Then his tax problems go away. In any case, Diamond Bar will be forced to stay in business to provide income to the government, or, forced out of business at a cost too high to bear.
Salt:
Correct.
Incorrect. As I said earlier, this would only be the case if the tax was on gross not net.
Since she will always be making more AFTER taxes on her taxable (that is, AFTER salaries are paid) income, she won’t be laying anyone off based on the $250,000 issue. Now, whether or not there is another program that might cause her to layoff someone I don’t know. It is not this one though.
One can make the case about dimishing returns. One can make the case that there is less capital going back into growth in the economy. One could make the case that losing a bit more money hampers the speed at which her company grows. One can’t make the point that she has to cut back to take home the same ammount.
There’s another way that the liberal blog’s logic is faulty (I know, big shock). You don’t have to be affected by injustice to oppose it.
I’m a man, but I’d oppose de-criminalizing rape. I’m white, but I’d fight against a return to Jim Crow laws. I’m childless, but I favor severe punishments for child molesters.
Wrong is wrong, period. If you think something is wrong you should oppose it.
That a liberal’s sense of right and wrong is informed primarily by self-interest doesn’t really surprise me though.
Fair enough. I stand corrected as I had thought it was on gross income.
Zeroangel, I understand your point but I think your pushing to hard.
If Kay is a smoker she will be paying an additional 61 cent a pack.
If Kay’s business uses electricity, she will pay more in taxes.
If Kay’s business uses gas…she will pay more (Obama wants $5 a gallon).
If Kay has a mortgage which she pays interest on, she could lose that as a tax write off.
If Kay goes to church and/or donates money to charities that the Obama clan does think is fit…she will lose these as a tax write off.
So, I conclude it is very posible.
sambo:
If I haven’t said it enough times already: I am a fiscal conservative and oppose making taxes anymore “graduated” then they already are. I generally lean toward a “flat tax” but understand that it is more an “idealistic” outlook then a reasonable one. As such, my sentiment is more or less inline with Ed in #107.
That said, what you say might be true, I said as much in the last para of #139.
That doesn’t change the fact that we should expose the frauds in our own party. James Felix made this point very well in #111.
sorry meant to say, second to last para of #139, here:
sorry meant to say, second to last para of #139, here:
argh… stupid internet and duplicate submissions.
Agreed 100%.
Well said.
It is not simply jealousy or envy.
It is resentment.
An envious or jealous person wants to take what the other guy has for himself.
The resentful individual, on the other hand, has as his goal the dragging down of the other guy to his level.
Remember what Churchill said:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
Jamie Glazov touches upon these points somewhat in his new book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror”, which I recently started.
He makes a compelling case that socialists have big-time personality/psychiatric problems.
Some, perhaps very many or most, of the socialists’ minions, and the entitlements-consumers that vote socialist, likely are stupid – and, hence, easily influenced, (mis)led and manipulated.
However, the socialist, fascist, statist, collectivist power-holders and string-pullers likely know exactly what they are doing.
They may indeed be arrogant, elitist, dangerous,…evil, even; but, I doubt that they are stupid.
And the fact that they are not stupid accounts to a great degree for why they are so dangerous.
So long as we challenge the facts and not the individual, I agree. Discrediting the individual only hints a bit at Alinsky tactics, unless of course the individual in question has established a pattern of being false.
There are some presumptions made here as to Kay’s motives which may or may not be accurate. She could have simply been mistaken. We don’t know Kay to know if she was deliberately misconstruing.
Not all CEOs were once CFOs. It’s possible that she pays someone else to manage her business finances. I know quite a few business owners that are savvy salesmen but terrible when it comes to the real numbers of business admin.
Hmmm, imagine making less money by taking more risk….. only in a liberal world.
People who are down on capitalism have zero historical perspective. They’re also almost pathalogically self-centered.
Most of us, if we compare our lifestyle to Brad Pitt, Bill Gates or Donald Trump are going to come up short. To feel some envy there is only human. But compare your life to the overwhelming majority of the human race, past and present, and you come out pretty good.
In America people who are considered to be living in poverty have homes, cars, phones, cable TV and computers. Insured or not they will be treated at emergency room for an injury or acute illness. For goodness sake, people below the poverty level in America have an obesity problem.
Go to Nigeria and tell them that’s poverty. See how they react.
Our poor people enjoy a standard of living that the middle class (or what passes for it) in most of the world would kill for. Our middle class live like kings. And most important of all, it’s possible to work your way from one class into another.
Capitalism has done more good for more people than any other political or economic system in history. People want to dismantle it not to improve their own lives, only to ruin someone else’s.
Yep.
That’s resentment, not envy.
As I said, socialists have serious personality/psychological problems.
Perchance to dream…
Things (*hopefully*) could get so bad that Pelosi gets voted out of office next year (?!?).
Oh, the emotive dissonance of it all!!!
Makes one feel gruesomely, creepily … liberal! Yuckin’ fugly.
It’s a big dream if you believe ultra-liberal San Francisco will ever give up their Nan.
Thank you both. It’s important to separate facts from feelings. Both are valid, but they shouldn’t be confused. That’s the left’s approach. We have to be honest to keep our self-respect. We should never twist ‘n spin facts. (Sadly, MM’s humorous headline about Geithner going after “tax cheats” had an inadvertant twist to it–but she’s still by far the best reporter, blogger, commentator out there.)
To an individual, a higher tax on income over $250k may effect the marginal utility (is it worth it on a personal level—not strictly dollars and cents) of reaching that level of taxable income…but the tax increase itself won’t mean that you would keep less money making $251k versus $249.
There is a reason why the founding fathers expressly forbade an income tax in the constitution. Do we really need any more empirical evidence as to their great wisdom?
None of this socialist lunacy would be possible if we repealed the 16th Amendment and went back to funding the government the way the founding fathers enshrined into the constitution!
I’ve got to tell y’all: Ayn Rand goes right over my head.
I guess I’m just not conservative/intellectual/cool enough.
I’ll stick with watching Spongebob Squarepants. He makes a lot more sense.
Tracked back through the ‘American Power’ link above and then dove into the ‘Moondancer’ link
I TOLD YOU ALL the other night ‘I am one of the most influential blog commenters in the political arena’
and I have found the first quoting of my own comments! (not that I was looking before lol)
Its only a few more steps until I make the enemies list that Rush was talking about. If only Rahm or Carville were as psychotic as my ex wife, I might almost think about quivering in my boots.
—-
(maybe the rest of the country doesnt comprehend A-type multi-taskers with ADD)
I was about to biatch about ‘Where’s my assistant?’… But then I realized, ehhh, they do have a point. I do have project managers and salesmen that do my dirty work for me. So in honor of their efforts, Im think I’ll head back down to the hot tub and then over to the brewpub. Im feeling stressed again…
Oh, and my parents werent rich, they worked in the fields as kids. And my grandparents picked cotten right alongside the black folks. We had an outhouse when I was little. Like the saying goes, ‘I’m your worst nightmare… Im white trash with money’
this is the change we allowed to happen.
All this talk about progressive tax rates omits the reality of AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).
That discussion belongs in an IRS.gov forum.
I’ve gone John Galt by force through corporate layoffs. I won’t pursue high paying technical jobs to fund bigger government.
If you look through this thread it’s obvious to see that the more leftist minded (definitely not liberal minded – I’ve yet to meet a liberal minded self proclaimed liberal) the harder it is for them to understand the simple truth that increased taxation is putative in nature.
How can they not understand? If you receive a fine for parking illegally you stop parking illegally regardless of where that fine money goes. If you receive a fine (increased tax) for hiring people you stop hiring people.
Then it hits me! They’re completely and totally clueless.
To the left paying higher taxes = patriotism. But the democrats to a soul do not pays taxes. Even their secretary of the Treasury doesn’t and we’re told he’s the smartest financial mind on earth (Man do we know the magnitude of that lie!)
they lecture and nag us about patriotism and high taxes like a whiney old school marm but what kind of example do they set?
If paying higher taxes = patriotism yet the left refuses to pay taxes then the OBVIOUS conclusion is that they’re unpatriotic. Well duh! That’s a foregone conclusion.
Is it altruism? Hardly, as AlfonZo Rachel most eloquently forwards the Democrat party is still the most racist organization in America.
Is it ideology? Not likely. George Bush prosecuted a war that the Democrats signed into law in 1998 and they hate him, he spend money like a drunken sailor just like them and they hate him. He ran up a huge government debt like Obama and they hate him. No, it’s not ideology, their ideology is for sale to the highest bidder, if Bush had come out in favor of abortion they’d be marching in front of planned parenthood clinics right now.
They’re just completely clueless about how the world works. They see communism as a good and beautiful thing yet they completely ignore the nearly 200 million civilians that communism slaughtered, they ignore the environmental nightmares that communism has turned huge portions of this planet into, they demand socialized medicine yet turn a blind eye to the thousand of people that pour across our borders to circumvent the inefficient meat grinder that socialism truly is, they ignore how FDR stretched a 2 year recession into a 10 year depression through his financial ineptitude and completely dismiss how Reagan resolved a financial melt down in under 2 dozen months through sound conservative values.
No, when the left thinks of Reagan they think of the deficit spending that their own party gave this country through the lies and deceits of Tom Foley.
They’re just not all that bright. That’s all it can be.
Well said, PKAmmo! Actually, I think they mean it is patriotic if WE pay our taxes… But, they have always lived by other rules.
chapoutier, you are wrong.
Even if only $50k is taxed at a higher rate, then the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE on all the income is higher.
Therefore, her statement is correct. Period.
Please, please, please try to debate this.
Frankly, it appears the Dem tax cheats seem to understand our tax system well enough to cheat systematically.
Why, oh why, does Obama think it’s good to kill the golden goose?? Is he crazy????
corkie:
Please, please read all of the comments.
Because of the ‘end up keeping the same amount’ this letter sounds like either a put-on or maybe he really doesn’t understand the marginal rate?
I like the sentiment though – starve the redistributors.
The more government takes – the more people will resist and break ‘the law’. The USSR is the shining example with the huge majority of its real economy being underground and everyone lying about it.
Love this old video of Freidman (RIP) and Donahue.
Obama is going to destroy our economy and our system of government. He wants all business to fail. He needs rampant inflation and the wealth of our citizenry to evaporate. It makes no difference who suffers or what the carnage will be during the collapse.
People that try to rationalize his behavior from the premise that he is stupid or inexperienced are missing the axe-wielding maniac standing in the corner, in my opinion.
His policies are not intended to restore anything. He needs collapse and chaos to rebuild our system from the ground up. Our system of government is too strong to “change” while most people are still functioning and are still comfortable.
We have been overtaken from within and everyone should just get that threw their thick heads. The country voted in a man that is contrary to everything this country ever fought, bled, and died for. Whether he and ACORN rigged the election, whether or not he’s qualified based on nationality, whether or not the media is his press corps, whether or not he’s a Manchurian President, none of that matters one iota.
People must get involved and stand up now before we no longer can. He’s moving as fast as he can to achieve his goals. Too many of us are debating his true intentions. That’s a dangerous waste of time when his intentions are quite clear.
4USA said (#168):
And he
eats Christian babies at Passover(oops, not Jewish) eats white babies on Kwanzaa.LOL!
LGM’s point should be well made. I was never one for conspiracy theories. Obama is not purposely trying to topple our economy, geezzz…
Of course I read all of the comments.
1. She clearly stated that she would reduce her staff!!!!
2. This means she plans on reducing her expenses.
3. An expense reduction coupled with a reduction in effective tax rate means that she can keep the same amount!
Does anyone here need an accounting lesson??
She also clearly stated she would reduce output, thus negating any savings she may have had through the reduction in expenses.
It could come down to what happened in Germany. They just kill you and take all your stuff. After all, that is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution.
I vote we go after lgm first and see hoe that works out.
It could come down to what happened in Germany. They just kill you and take all your stuff. After all, that is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution.
I vote we go after lgm first and see how that works out.
sorry about the double post…didn’t catch the speling error in time..coffee…
corkie:
See #74 and #139.
As Chap said, she is talking about reducing her output and still bringing home the same money.
This is not true. Anyway you slice it if you bring home $250,000 as opposed to $249,999 AFTER expenses (that is, AFTER salaries are paid) you are still making more money.
If you read her statement as saying she is going to pay a lesser percentage of taxes on her income overall, that part is correct; although that is not the only way to read it.
The problem comes in when she says she is going to make the same amount of money by reducing output. That part is false.
1. What makes you think that reducing output automatically reduces net income? I can provide you plenty of examples in which that doesn’t hold.
2. Are you suggesting that this woman DIDN’T mean that she would keep the same amount on a percentage basis? I didn’t for one second think she meant anything except that. In other words, she’s saying that she refuses to pay a higher effective tax rate and is making plans to avoid it. Her plan makes perfect sense to me.
corkie:
If, for some reason, reducing output generates MORE net income then she will make more money regardless of what tax system is in place.
What exactly are you suggesting? Please give us an example using real figures.
NVM, I think I see what you are saying.
You are suggeting that she is trying to set it up so that she is still taking home the same PERCENTAGE, not the same ammount (indeed a lesser ammount).
Is that correct?
Unless 1) she’s OPEC; 2) her costs for output are more the price she charges (in which case she deserves whatever she gets) I am going to go out on a limb here and say that reduced output will indeed lead to reduced income.
Wow. You’ve demonstrated a complete lack of any business knowledge.
Companies increase net income all the time by selling or ceasing low-margin activities.
The result is often;
a. reduced output
b. reduced revenue
c. increased net income
corkie:
That can be true no matter what tax system is in place. It is completely independant of Obama’s taxes since the taxes are applied to net.
Yes, that’s what I assumed she meant from the beginning. The word “amount” is fine. In other words, she’s saying, “I will take home the same amount commensurate with my effort.”
I bet if you were getting paid $10 per hour yet DELIBERATELY reduced your hours, then you would still claim that were making the SAME AMOUNT. I assumed she meant exactly that.
Yeah…which is another way of saying it is costing more to produce the output than what she is getting for it. Which is what I said above. So Kay is either consistently losing money in her business or has multiple outputs, some of which are apparently a drain on the profitable ones.
And zero’s right. If reducing output leads to increased revenue, this would be true, and efficient to do no matter what the tax law is.
Yes, I’m realizing that I didn’t do a good job of specifying my side debate with chapoutier on that issue.
My apologies.
So you agree that you were wrong in making your definitive statement?
BTW, it doesn’t mean that she has negative Gross Margin. It might be her SGA or other expenses which is apportioned to such output is causing the reduction in net income.
Often, such issues are difficult for managers to determine from a cost accounting (different from financial accounting) perspective.
She is obviously still profitable overall, so I don’t see why you imply that she’s a bad manager.
corkie:
OK, I see what you are saying but I think that is just a rather tortured way to read what this Kay person said.
To me; since she didn’t use the word percentage and instead chose to use the word amount; it seems like she is either ignorant or being purposely disingenuous.
Sure. If one were to take the most favorable possible explanation of what she said and make a ton of assumptions about her business, I suppose I could be wrong.
I didn’t say she was a bad manager. I said her understanding of our tax system was wrong.
I bet if you were getting paid $10 per hour yet DELIBERATELY reduced your hours, then you would still claim that were still making the SAME AMOUNT.
You wouldn’t say, I’m making the same percentage.
1. This is your incorrect statement.
2. Saying, “she deserves whatever she gets” seems to imply that she would be a bad manager. Sorry, for not previously using conditional verb tense.
Gotcha. I guess I would say she is a bad manager if, under the scenario we were led to, she could actually increase net income by reducing output. That just makes sense. However, that was not a scenario I had originally put forth, nor one that I believe is the case.
corkie:
Deja vu? Did you just repeat yourself? Look, I realize you can read what she wrote as you do.
I can’t change my opinion though when I say it’s tortured. Yes, I would use the word percentage, especially since I would be writing a letter to the editor, I would want to be as clear as possible.
Yes, if you make $10 per hour and reduce your hours, you could say that you still make the same amount–$10 per hour.
But you can’t claim you will be able to keep the same “amount” after taxes. Kay was talking about her net taxable income and claiming she could reduce net taxable income and still keep the same “amount”. In that context, I don’t see how anyone could reduce their net taxable income from $300k to $249k and still net the same amount after taxes. You say she meant “amount” relative to effort, but she doesn’t say or imply that at all.
Business math aside, we understand her message. She doesn’t want to pay higher taxes that will be used to socialize the US. Good for her!!! Someone should tell her she doesn’t need to lay off staff. To reduced her taxable income she could actually add staff or just put a little less effort into generating sales.
If you have less sales, then you probably need less staff – hence the reduction.
I didn’t ask if you would use the word percentage in her case. I asked if you would use the word percentage regarding a reduction of your hours. I’m quite confident that you would use the word amount.
I can certainly agree regarding the term with respect to a newspaper letter. She might be bad at articulating herself, but I honestly believe she’s thinking about the situation correctly.
I think I’m doing a bad job of articulating myself today. You usually understand me quickly.
I think it’s too aggressive to state that a manager is bad simply because net income increases can be gained by reducing output.
It’s possible that the reduced output was part of a new expansion effort or part of a sagging legacy business hoping for a rebound.