On March 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, zeroangel said:

Thanks, you and Chap both made great (and logical) points throughout this messy thread.

On March 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, chapoutier said:

If she is cutting activities that are even marginally profitable, she certainly could not expect to end up “keeping the same amount” could she?

Arg. My note to you was merely a comment regarding the whole bad manager issue. Forget it, I shouldn’t have reopened it.

On March 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, zeroangel said:

You understand my point, but don’t believe my candor?

I wouldn’t have jumped into this thread if I didn’t honestly believe what I’m saying. Believe me, I know how involved these debates can get, and I don’t decide to take the plunge lightly.

Sorry for the rapid fire posts but I was hoping to end this thread .

… and I hope this puts this to bed.

I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that what “Kay” means to say is that she is cutting marginally profitable activites because of dimishing returns due to higher taxes above $250,000. This will allow her to make the same “ammount” where “making the same ammount” means “making the same ammount per unit of effort.”

I get it. I just think you are wrong and are torturing the plain meaning of words because you don’t want to admit what seems plainly obvious: that she actually thinks a person with a taxable income of $249,999 actually brings home more after taxes than a person making $250,000. This is plainly false.

No doubt you will try to say thatit is me that is reading it wrong. I am sorry, I just don’t think so, and unfortunately, “Kay,” is here to clarify (or backpeddle).

Sorry.

This is getting tedious and crossing into ridiculous “Arguments from authority.”

Business experience or not; and yes I do have some; you have yet to explain away why she shouldn’t instead take a lesser salary or donate to charity for a tax-exemption.

Either way could conceivably lower her taxable income and thus reach the desired goals without needlessly firing employees.

PS. What Chap said.

In making such reductions, it’s logical to cut the activities which generate the least amount of profit (note to chapoutier: that doesn’t mean that the targeted activities are UNprofitable).

If she is cutting activities that are even marginally profitable, she certainly could not expect to end up “keeping the same amount” could she?

On March 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, zeroangel said:

Who’s being silly?

Do you have any business experience at all?

Why would she reduce her revenues AND pay useless employees? That would be a double hit.

Or are you seriously suggesting that she should put the extra effort required to maintaining her revenue AND hiring new employees?

It seems as if she, like many of us, is thinking about reducing her efforts of generating income. In making such reductions, it’s logical to cut the activities which generate the least amount of profit (note to chapoutier: that doesn’t mean that the targeted activities are UNprofitable). None of your ideas mesh with that.

I don’t think there’s anything silly about what she’s saying. However, I am doubting your business experience.

Is that so? So let’s say you “hire” someone to stay at home and do nothing. Let’s say you donate some money to get a tax write-off. Or, again, why not simply accept less pay? Why not accept less pay AND use the extra $50,000 to hire someone to help manage the business and in effect you exert less “effort.”

I can’t help but think you are torturing language here because you just don’t want to admit what this “Kay” person is saying is just silly.

Not only silly, but will needlessly result in some people becoming unemployed.