# About small business people...



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Since it looks like small business people who make more than $250,000.00 a year will be hit with a tax increase I thought I'd give a little of my insight into this area as someone who has worked with small business people.

Small business people are the local dentist, vet, software programming outfit, auto repair shop, electrician, etc. Yes, even plumbers. They are people who have worked hard to create a business and those who are successful are rewarded with a nice income. 

They are the engine of the economy. Their biggest expenses is payroll. When they get hit with increased taxes they spend less, hire less, cut wages or cut back on staff.

When they spend less this effects everyone else from the local florist to the local printer to the waitress at the local restaurant.

I'm guessing Obama's tax increase on a small business person making $250,000.00 will probably be around $8,000.00.

The question I have is this: Who would you rather have spend that money? The government or the small business person?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

2% of the country makes over $250,000 and I doubt even 1% of them are "small business people." The only ones that might possibly make that much in the list you provided are dentists...and they'd have to have a pretty upscale clientele.


----------



## sparky (Nov 8, 2008)

even if we choke up NFIB or SBA stats, there's a whole lot more to small biz that jusy plain taxes, the biggest liability?>>>insurance


----------



## DavidS (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Since it looks like small business people who make more than $250,000.00 a year will be hit with a tax increase I thought I'd give a little of my insight into this area as someone who has worked with small business people.
> 
> Small business people are the local dentist, vet, software programming outfit, auto repair shop, electrician, etc. Yes, even plumbers. They are people who have worked hard to create a business and those who are successful are rewarded with a nice income.
> 
> ...



I highly doubt a vet is making $250,000 a year in net profit. Any good cpa will work the numbers just so you make under that. 

I've explained this before. The tax increase comes on net revenue, not gross revenue. So if you make $200 million in gross revenue and you have spent $199,760,000, you don't see your taxes increase one penny.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> 2% of the country makes over $250,000 and I doubt even 1% of them are "small business people." The only ones that might possibly make that much in the list you provided are dentists...and they'd have to have a pretty upscale clientele.



First of all from the list I gave you many of those businesses make more than $250,000.00. It depends on the intelligence and hard work of the business owner.

Do not confuse the individual plumber with the owner a plumbing business that employs 20 people. 

There is a lot of propaganda from both sides on how many people will be effected. It will be approximately one million small businesses and/or people making over $250,000.00.

So who would you rather have spending that money? The individual or the government?


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> First of all from the list I gave you many of those businesses make more than $250,000.00. It depends on the intelligence and hard work of the business owner.
> 
> Do not confuse the individual plumber with the owner a plumbing business that employs 20 people.
> 
> ...



The government.

The rich suck. Soak the rich.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

> I highly doubt a vet is making $250,000 a year in net profit. Any good cpa will work the numbers just so you make under that.



Many don't. Many do. I can assure you a vet with a couple associates and a staff of 10 is making over 250K. This is my business. I know what I'm talking about.



> The tax increase comes on net revenue.



I'm talking about net. 

It will effect about one million people small business people and/or those making over 200K or 250K as a family.

Again, the question is who do you want spending the money? The individual or the government?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> The government.
> 
> The rich suck. Soak the rich.



At least your honest. Do you mind my asking you what you do for a living?


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Many don't. Many do. I can assure you a vet with a couple associates and a staff of 10 is making over 250K. This is my business. I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The government....

Bush left us with a $500 billion dollar budget deficit and a $10 trillion dollar National Debt.

The borrow and spend Republicans have bankrupted the country.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> First of all from the list I gave you many of those businesses make more than $250,000.00. It depends on the intelligence and hard work of the business owner.
> 
> Do not confuse the individual plumber with the owner a plumbing business that employs 20 people.
> 
> ...


Businesses don't pay income tax. The owners and employees of the business do. So unless someone is taking an income of $250,000 or greater out of the business, they've nothing to worry about.

It's quite obvious that you don't own a business...so why don't you talk to someone that does?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Businesses don't pay income tax. The owners and employees of the business do. So unless someone is taking an income of $250,000 or greater out of the business, they've nothing to worry about.



I do own a small business. One million people will have their tax burden increased by Obama. Some will be small business owners, some not. It's not important. Either way they will spend less whether at the local restaurant, Home Depot or with the local handyman.

The question is: Who would you rather have spend that money? The government or the individual?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> First of all from the list I gave you many of those businesses make more than $250,000.00. It depends on the intelligence and hard work of the business owner.
> 
> Do not confuse the individual plumber with the owner a plumbing business that employs 20 people.
> 
> ...



98.6% of small business will not see their tax rate go up a single penny. Less then 2% will see their taxes go up under Obama plan. 

Checking facts: Will Obama raise small biz taxes? - Oct. 16, 2008


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> The government....
> 
> Bush left us with a $500 billion dollar budget deficit and a $10 trillion dollar National Debt.
> 
> The borrow and spend Republicans have bankrupted the country.



The Congress proposes the budgets and controls the purse strings. 

The last two budgets were controlled by Democrats with a lame duck President. 

Explain that one?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I do own a small business. One million people will have their tax burden increased by Obama. Some will be small business owners, some not. It's not important. Either way they will spend less whether at the local restaurant, Home Depot or with the local handyman.
> 
> The question is: Who would you rather have spend that money? The government or the individual?


So you report a personal income to the IRS of $250,000 or more per year?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> 98.6% of small business will not see their tax rate go up a single penny. Less then 2% will see their taxes go up under Obama plan.
> 
> Checking facts: Will Obama raise small biz taxes? - Oct. 16, 2008



Those percentages are very misleading but again it is not the point.

The point is one million small business people and/or those making over 200K or 250K as a family will see their taxes go up.

Again, the question is who do you want spending the money? The individual or the government?


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I do own a small business. One million people will have their tax burden increased by Obama. Some will be small business owners, some not. It's not important. Either way they will spend less whether at the local restaurant, Home Depot or with the local handyman.
> 
> The question is: Who would you rather have spend that money? The government or the individual?



Ravi is right.  You don't understand business taxes, and I now think you're lying about being  a "small business owner".  Just like Joe not the Plumber, huh?  Inventing things about yourself?

The 250k figure is NET, which means profit after business expenses such as wages for employees, office space, utilities, inventory purchases, and equipment* are deducted out.*

A "small" business owner might gross ten million dollars a year, be if she plowed that back into overhead, such as hiring new employees, she might still only _net_ 250k, and not get a tax increase.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> So you report a personal income to the IRS of $250,000 or more per year?



Correct.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Correct.


And how exactly does that affect your business? I can see how it could affect you, personally, but not your business. If you don't want to pay more in taxes, give out your additional income in employee bonuses or buy some new dog wash machines.

Win/win either way because the money will get spent in the economy instead of sitting in your personal savings account.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Ravi is right.  You don't understand business taxes.



I understand it quite well. I have an S corp. The corporation pays no taxes as we always zero out the expenses at the end of the year. There is nothing complicated about this and really is not the point.

The point is this:

Approximately one million small businesses and/or people making over 200K (or 250K as a family) will have a tax increase.

So who would you rather have spending that money? The individual or the government?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Correct.



How much do you clear a year in sales?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I understand it quite well. I have an S corp. The corporation pays no taxes as we always zero out the expenses at the end of the year. There is nothing complicated about this and really is not the point.
> 
> The point is this:
> 
> ...


Maybe you should start over. Small businesses don't pay income tax.

Start a new thread about how the top 2% of income earners might end up paying a higher income tax rate.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> And how exactly does that affect your business? I can see how it could affect you, personally, but not your business. If you don't want to pay more in taxes, give out your additional income in employee bonuses or buy some new dog wash machines.
> 
> Win/win either way because the money will get spent in the economy instead of sitting in your personal savings account.



As a small business person I do not think of my business as separate from myself. It's an accounting matter.

But if I have to pay an additional $8,000.00 in taxes then either I need to pay myself more to make up for my increased tax burden (which means less money for the business expenses such as employee salaries) or I need to reduce my own spending which effects the waitress at my local restaurant or the handyman who does work on my house.

Either way increasing my taxes doesn't just effect me.

There is nothing very complicated about this.

The question is: Who would you rather have spending that money? The individual or the government?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Maybe you should start over. Small businesses don't pay income tax.
> 
> Start a new thread about how the top 2% of income earners might end up paying a higher income tax rate.



Apparently he is tripping over his own lies.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> How much do you clear a year in sales?



Our sales will be down this year but typically one million. I employ three people in addition to myself.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Maybe you should start over. Small businesses don't pay income tax.
> 
> Start a new thread about how the top 2% of income earners might end up paying a higher income tax rate.



I never said they did.

Seems only Chris wants to give an honest answer about who he'd rather have spend the money.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> Apparently he is tripping over his own lies.



And what lie would that be?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> As a small business person I do not think of my business as separate from myself. It's an accounting matter.
> 
> But if I have to pay an additional $8,000.00 in taxes then eithe*r I need to pay myself more to make up for my increased tax burden (which means less money for the business expenses such as employee salaries)* or I need to reduce my own spending which effects the waitress at my local restaurant or the handyman who does work on my house.
> 
> ...



that sentence proves you don't own a small business and you dont make anywhere near 200k..


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> And what lie would that be?



you claim to own a small business yet dont understand how the tax policy is structured towards business.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> that sentence proves you don't own a small business and you dont make anywhere near 200k..



I could care less if you think I'm a street person. 

The point is this:

Approximately one million individuals who make 200K or 250K as a family will have their taxes increased. Some will be small business owners. Some will be individuals who work for someone else.

The question is: Who would you rather have spend the money? The government or the individual.

It's a simple question.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> that sentence proves you don't own a small business and you dont make anywhere near 200k..



Just out of morbid curiosity how do you come up with that conclusion?


----------



## PeterS (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Since it looks like small business people who make more than $250,000.00 a year will be hit with a tax increase I thought I'd give a little of my insight into this area as someone who has worked with small business people.
> 
> Small business people are the local dentist, vet, software programming outfit, auto repair shop, electrician, etc. Yes, even plumbers. They are people who have worked hard to create a business and those who are successful are rewarded with a nice income.
> 
> ...



Well lets see. I have an surgery for skin cancer coming up and my PPO has a $1,000 deductible and considers skin graphs cosmetic surgery so doesn't cover them therefore add $1,200 to my bill. The way I figure I have $2,200 less for my local plumber, waitress, printer, etc. so, if taxing my surgeon 8 grand lowers my out of pocket expenses thereby increasing my discretionary income I have available for all the 'little' people I say tax the bitch. Joe the plumber needs my income...


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I could care less if you think I'm a street person.
> 
> The point is this:
> 
> ...



its not a simple question its a stupid question. taxes are always a redistribution of wealth. of course I dont like taxes, but the borrow and spend policy of the Bush admin has only mortgaged our futures. also where do you get your numbers from? make them up, or do you have a non partisan link?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> you claim to own a small business yet dont understand how the tax policy is structured towards business.



There's not a whole lot to understand about an S Corp. That being said my wife does the books and we have a CPA. If there is a specific question you have fire away.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> There's not a whole lot to understand about an S Corp. That being said my wife does the books and we have a CPA. If there is a specific question you have fire away.



what is the name of your "small business"


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> its not a simple question its a stupid question. taxes are always a redistribution of wealth. of course I dont like taxes, but the borrow and spend policy of the Bush admin has only mortgaged our futures. also where do you get your numbers from? make them up, or do you have a non partisan link?



Taxing people is NOT always a redistribution of wealth.

Taxing people to build highways and bridges is NOT redistribution of wealth.

Taxing one group of taxpayers in order to write a check to another group of taxpayers is redistribution of wealth.

Your Democratic Congress has controlled the purse strings for the past two years yet I have not seen a reduction in spending, the deficit or the debt.

I would support paying more taxes if it went to reduce the debt and deficit but it won't. Not with Obama promising another trillion in spending.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Since it looks like small business people who make more than $250,000.00 a year will be hit with a tax increase I thought I'd give a little of my insight into this area as someone who has worked with small business people.
> 
> Small business people are the local dentist, vet, software programming outfit, auto repair shop, electrician, etc. Yes, even plumbers. They are people who have worked hard to create a business and those who are successful are rewarded with a nice income.
> 
> ...


 
C'mon man, small businesses will simple adjust to the circumstances. Be it that they put everybody on part time, let some people go, or whatever it takes.

Ya know, this game has been going on since the government has been taxing people/companies.

We don't like it. Never did, never will.

In reality the tax increase to business owners making 200+K per year will be somewhere around zero.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> what is the name of your "small business"



I prefer to remain anonymous thank you very much. But again, if it makes you feel better just assume I'm a homeless person using a computer at the local library.

I don't care if one person or a million people have a tax increase. The question remains the same: Who would you rather have spend the money? The government or the individual?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

NObama said:


> C'mon man, small businesses will simple adjust to the circumstances. Be it that they put everybody on part time, let some people go, or whatever it takes.
> 
> Ya know, this game has been going on since the government has been taxing people/companies.
> 
> ...



If he actually owned a business he would already know this.


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Businesses don't pay income tax. The owners and employees of the business do. So unless someone is taking an income of $250,000 or greater out of the business, they've nothing to worry about.
> 
> It's quite obvious that you don't own a business...so why don't you talk to someone that does?



And yet, interestingly, despite not being a small business owner; and despite knowing nothing about how taxes actually affect small business, he persists in engaging in propaganda about something he knows nothing about.

Also, if you look at the demographics with regard to the election, the small business owners, doctors, dentists, etc, all voted for Obama.

Reality is fascinating, don't you think?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> The government.
> 
> The rich suck. Soak the rich.



Hey a news flash -- the rich give other people jobs.  If they're making less money, they're going to cut the payrolls.  It's not trickle up economics like Obama says, it's trickle down economics.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> And yet, interestingly, despite not being a small business owner; and despite knowing nothing about how taxes actually affect small business, he persists in engaging in propaganda about something he knows nothing about.
> 
> Also, if you look at the demographics with regard to the election, the small business owners, doctors, dentists, etc, all voted for Obama.
> 
> Reality is fascinating, don't you think?


 
Bull Shit.

Edit - Period


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

NObama said:


> C'mon man, small businesses will simple adjust to the circumstances. Be it that they put everybody on part time, let some people go, or whatever it takes.
> 
> Ya know, this game has been going on since the government has been taxing people/companies.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything but the last sentence.

But you need to add that the small business person will raise their fees, etc. So then who gets screwed? The middle class. What else is new?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I prefer to remain anonymous thank you very much. But again, if it makes you feel better just assume I'm a homeless person using a computer at the local library.
> 
> I don't care if one person or a million people have a tax increase. The question remains the same: Who would you rather have spend the money? The government or the individual?



lol.. your a joke.. your sales about a million yet minus employee costs,insurance,rent,utilities,new equipment expense,cog, you clear over 250k.. lol.. peddle your bs somewhere else, nothing more sad then a wannabe..


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> that sentence proves you don't own a small business and you dont make anywhere near 200k..


Yep. Not to mention in one part of the thread he had associates and 10 people on staff, but now he's down to him and 3 others.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> And yet, interestingly, despite not being a small business owner; and despite knowing nothing about how taxes actually affect small business, he persists in engaging in propaganda about something he knows nothing about.
> 
> Also, if you look at the demographics with regard to the election, the small business owners, doctors, dentists, etc, all voted for Obama.
> 
> Reality is fascinating, don't you think?



Now, Jillian, there you go foaming at the mouth again. 

Mind sending me a link about how dentists voted for Obama?


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2008)

NObama said:


> Bull Shit.
> 
> Edit - Period



oh thank you so much for your useless opinion.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> lol.. your a joke.. your sales about a million yet minus employee costs,insurance,rent,utilities,new equipment expense,cog, you clear over 250k.. lol.. peddle your bs somewhere else, nothing more sad then a wannabe..



Just so I can know how truly ignorant you are what about those figures do you find to be a joke?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yep. Not to mention in one part of the thread he had associates and 10 people on staff, but now he's down to him and 3 others.



You've had one drink too many today. Where did I ever say I had associates and 10 staff?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Just so I can know how truly ignorant you are what about those figures do you find to be a joke?



I am not going to explain it for your dumbass. anyone who has really owned a business can figure it out, you can't becasue you are repeating shit you heard. you dont know what your talking about, stop embarrasing yourself.


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Just so I can know how truly ignorant you are what about those figures do you find to be a joke?



actually, your persistent lack of knowledge about how taxes affect small business make it pretty clear.

just like the whiners who go to college throwing tantrums that their "taxes" are going to go up.

Again, based on the demographics, real small business owners voted for Obama over someone who seemed like he just didn't have a handle on it... and his sidekick, bible spice.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> oh thank you so much for your useless opinion.


 
My pleasure. 

It's not every day that I get to put an unemployed lawyer, who lives under a rock, in her place.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hey a news flash -- the rich give other people jobs.  If they're making less money, they're going to cut the payrolls.  It's not trickle up economics like Obama says, it's trickle down economics.



You're not allowed to make sense.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> You're not allowed to make sense.



what is your cog for a month? when you file with what form do you use?


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> First of all from the list I gave you many of those businesses make more than $250,000.00. It depends on the intelligence and hard work of the business owner.
> 
> Do not confuse the individual plumber with the owner a plumbing business* that employs 20 people. *



Right here is where you blew your cover.  You don't own a "small business", and you're trying to pull a Joe Not the Plumber fast one, by inventing a fantasy background about yourself. 

Did you not understand that business and capital overhead - such as wages and labor - are _deductible_ and not part of the net income tax liability?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> I am not going to explain it for your dumbass. anyone who has really owned a business can figure it out, you can't becasue you are repeating shit you heard. you dont know what your talking about, stop embarrasing yourself.



I am a consultant. I have no inventory. I require no insurance. With the advent of the internet I am able to work at home. All my marketing is done via the net. I have two consultants who travel. They are my only real expense and they are paid quite well.

Your personal attacks are quite silly and irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2008)

NObama said:


> My pleasure.
> 
> It's not every day that I get to put an unemployed lawyer, who lives under a rock, in her place.



you can pretend that, but on all counts, you're a fool.


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I am a consultant. I have no inventory. I require no insurance. With the advent of the internet I am able to work at home. All my marketing is done via the net. I have two consultants who travel. They are my only real expense and they are paid quite well.
> 
> Your personal attacks are quite silly and irrelevant to the discussion.



It just seems apparent to those of us who have run small businesses that you don't know your subject matter.

I'd also add, that if what you are saying were true, what wouldn't be true is what occurred -- that the only demographic Obama lost was white males who aren't college educated... the group which is most insecure about economic competition.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I am a consultant. I have no inventory. I require no insurance. With the advent of the internet I am able to work at home. All my marketing is done via the net. I have two consultants who travel. They are my only real expense and they are paid quite well.
> 
> Your personal attacks are quite silly and irrelevant to the discussion.



 buahahaha... so do you run it on myspace? I thought you had 3 employees? what services do you provide?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> It just seems apparent to those of us who have run small businesses that you don't know your subject matter.
> 
> I'd also add, that if what you are saying were true, what wouldn't be true is what occurred -- that the only demographic Obama lost was white males who aren't college educated... the group which is most insecure about economic competition.



too bad he cant google fast enough for his answers.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> you can pretend that, but on all counts, you're a fool.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> what is your cog for a month? when you file with what form do you use?



According to my  2007 S Corp return Cost of Goods (Line 2) was $371,183.00.

Any other questions, Columbo?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> According to my  2007 S Corp return Cost of Goods (Line 2) was $371,183.00.
> 
> Any other questions, Columbo?



how many shareholders does your s corp have?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

> It just seems apparent to those of us who have run small businesses that you don't know your subject matter.



You wouldn't be the first to say so. I'm sure you won't be the last. My wife does the bookkeeping and we have a CPA. All I do is sign where I'm told to. 

But I'm not sure exactly what I've said that causes such disbelief. This stuff is not rocket science. 

But back to my question....



> I'd also add, that if what you are saying were true, what wouldn't be true is what occurred -- that the only demographic Obama lost was white males who aren't college educated... the group which is most insecure about economic competition.



I think you will agree that when an election cycle begins each side begins with 45% and then battles over the remaining 10%.

I suspect there were a lot of different reasons the last 10% voted the way they did.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> You wouldn't be the first to say so. I'm sure you won't be the last. My wife does the bookkeeping and we have a CPA. All I do is sign where I'm told to.
> 
> *But I'm not sure exactly what I've said that causes such disbelief. This stuff is not rocket science. *
> 
> ...



Exactly which is why you look more stupid. how many shareholders do you have?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> how many shareholders does your s corp have?



Now you're getting silly. I set up my S Corp over 10 years ago and haven't looked at the papers since. But just for you when I go down to my wife's office (yes she has a home office too) I'll pull out the incorp papers and let you know. There in a cool little box with a seal imprinter. Very impressive.

I did go out in the garage and grab my 2007 tax returns so I could answer your other question. Wanna ask me any questions about those, Columbo?

Now when do you think you might answer my little tax question?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Now you're getting silly. I set up my S Corp over 10 years ago and haven't looked at them since. But just for you when I go down to my wife's office (yes she has a home office too) I'll pull out the incorp papers and let you know. There in a cool little box with a seal imprinter. Very impressive.
> 
> I did go out in the garage and grab my 2007 tax returns so I could answer your other question. Wanna ask me any questions about those, Columbo?
> 
> Now when do you think you might answer my little tax question?



yea thats what I though,liar.. ur pathetic.. I thought you operate out of your house with no inventory and only 2 consultants? how do you know your earnings if you dont even know how many shareholders? your shareholders determine your portion of income.. nice try,,


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> yea thats what I though,liar.. ur pathetic.. I thought you operate out of your house with no inventory and only 2 consultants? how do you know your earnings if you dont even know how many shareholders? your shareholders determine your portion of income.. nice try,,



Just checked with the wife. 100 shares.

OK, listen, Columbo. Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? 

How about we make a nice heafty wager that I can produce tax documents that prove exactly what I say? Not only that I will provide you with my web site, phone number and maybe even some clients.

If you're ready let me know and I will PM you.

Now either put up or shut up.

P.S. By the way Sherlock, my two consultants are independent contractors and the wife is not on the payroll. I am the only employee which is why I could care less how many shares the corp has. I pay myself a salary and the rest is taken as S Corp Profit from Schedule E (Line 32).


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> The Congress proposes the budgets and controls the purse strings.
> 
> The last two budgets were controlled by Democrats with a lame duck President.
> 
> Explain that one?



Bullshit.

Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt. 

If you cut taxes and increase military spending, you end up with massive debt. 

That is what the borrow and spend Republicans do.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.
> 
> ...



Perhaps but your Democratic Congress continued it for the past two years and will continue it for the next 2 years.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Perhaps but your Democratic Congress continued it for the past two years and will continue it for the next 2 years.



More bullshit.

Bush pushed through the Iraq invasion with lies. Then he pushed through the bullshit "war on terror" which is costing us a fortune. Then he pushed through the bogus Medicare drug benefit which was a handout to the drug companies. 

You can't lie to me boy. I know too much.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> More bullshit.
> 
> Bush pushed through the Iraq invasion with lies. Then he pushed through the bullshit "war on terror" which is costing us a fortune. Then he pushed through the bogus Medicare drug benefit which was a handout to the drug companies.
> 
> You can't lie to me boy. I know too much.



I agree with you on the Medicare benefit. It was bullshit.

But I'm afraid you will have to be lying to yourself in about 2 years when the deficit has gotten bigger, the debt has grown, unemployment is high and many of our troops are still in Iraq.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I agree with you on the Medicare benefit. It was bullshit.
> 
> But I'm afraid you will have to be lying to yourself in about 2 years when the deficit has gotten bigger, the debt has grown, unemployment is high and many of our troops are still in Iraq.



The deficit will have to get bigger to save the country from Bush's failed leadership.

It will take more than two years to turn things around.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> The deficit will have to get bigger to save the country from Bush's failed leadership.
> 
> It will take more than two years to turn things around.



Yes, but will we see improvement within 2 years? Obama and the Dems will only be able to blame Bush for a year. Remember by 2010 the Dems will have controlled Congress for 4 years. As a business person I hope the economy is doing much better. I simply have my doubts. I will be happy to be wrong.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> The deficit will have to get bigger to save the country from Bush's failed leadership.
> 
> It will take more than two years to turn things around.


 
Look in a mirror, you'll find an idiot.

Over.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Yes, but will we see improvement within 2 years? Obama and the Dems will only be able to blame Bush for a year. Remember by 2010 the Dems will have controlled Congress for 4 years. As a business person I hope the economy is doing much better. I simply have my doubts. I will be happy to be wrong.



We need more than improvement in two years. We need an adminstration that works on the real problems facing America.....getting out of Iraq, American energy independence, and our ridiculously overpriced healthcare system. 

Those are Obama's priorities, not some bogus bullshit "war on terror."


----------



## Care4all (Nov 8, 2008)

Paperboy, you are making no sense.

1.  in your example of having to pay $8000 more a year in taxes....
The tax hike for the family over $250k net taxable income is $30 for every $1000 extra earned over the 250k net so if your taxes went up $8k on obama's plan that means that you earned net an additional $266k NET taxable income added to your $250k net for a total taxable NET income of $516,000.  I don't think the $8k is going to kill or hurt any one that is netting a half a million a year.

you will still go to your restaurants, you will still pay your maid and you will still buy your yaght...making the extra 266k net on top of the $250k net will MORE than make up for the 8 k extra in taxes, the 3% extra you would have to pay under obama's plan....over the $250k....

basically, 8k extra on a net taxable family income of $516 k is not going to break your back or anyones in that kind of net income range.

But paying $1k more a year for a person making $20k net taxable income will make a huge difference to him...and strap him much more.

it is one or the other....the guy making $516k net/taxable getting strapped by the $8k more, or the 8 guys netting 20k getting strapped by paying $1k more....i think it would be much more valuable to give the -8 men making $20 k net an extra $1k of their own money in taxes back.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

> The tax hike for the family over $250k net taxable income is $30 for every $1000 extra earned over the 250k.



Wrong. The tax rate goes up 3% on all the taxable income. Sigh.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Wrong. The tax rate goes up 3% on all the taxable income. Sigh.



Good.

People who make over $250,000 should pay more.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> We need more than improvement in two years. We need an adminstration that works on the real problems facing America.....getting out of Iraq, American energy independence, and our ridiculously overpriced healthcare system.
> 
> Those are Obama's priorities, not some bogus bullshit "war on terror."



Agreed. And I'm afraid you will also be very disappointed that Obama does not gets us anywhere near energy independence unless he allows major off shore drilling, expands coal plants and quickly gets a lot of nuclear plants being approved.

As for health care the best proposal I've heard is to allow health insurance companies to compete across state borders. Also to limit liability as insurance premiums are killing doctors. But he'd have to go up against the Trial Lawyers so don't hold your breath.

If Obama does these things I'll jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> Good.
> 
> People who make over $250,000 should pay more.


 
Look in a mirror, you'll find an idiot.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

pb, setting aside the question of if you actually have a business or not, if you make $500,000 a year you would end up paying an additional $4509 assuming the highest tax bracket is raised from 35% to 38% (assuming no deductions).

Here's a link to the IRS 2007 Tax Table. Page 13.

You're a joke. Not only do you not understand that small business don't pay income tax, you also don't even understand the most rudimentary tax law.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> Good.
> 
> People who make over $250,000 should pay more.



Like I said, Chris, at least you're honest.

Here are some facts:

The richest 1 percent of the population earns 16 percent of the income but pays 33% of federal income taxes.

The richest 10 percent earn 33% of the income  and pay 66% of the tax.

The poorest 50% pay less than 3%.

The countries income is already very nicely redistributed.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> pb, setting aside the question of if you actually have a business or not, if you make $500,000 a year you would end up paying an additional $4509 assuming the highest tax bracket is raised from 35% to 38% (assuming no deductions).
> 
> Here's a link to the IRS 2007 Tax Table. Page 13.
> 
> ...



If it will make your day then, yes, Ravi, I am a joke.

Now to my original question: Would you rather have the government spend that $5,000.00 or leave it the individual to spend?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> If it will make your day then, yes, Ravi, I am a joke.
> 
> Now to my original question: Would you rather have the government spend that $5,000.00 or leave it the individual to spend?


I'm happy either way. I don't mind paying my fair share, after all, I'd never make as much money as I do without all the bennies I get from things our tax money pays for.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I'm happy either way. I don't mind paying my fair share, after all, I'd never make as much money as I do without all the bennies I get from things our tax money pays for.



So you'd rather have the government spend the money. Fair enough. I would not. I would like the government to freeze or cut spending and cut taxes for everyone. If they did so revenues would go up and they could start reducing the deficit and debt.

Sorry if you disagree. No reason for name calling though. After all we are all suppose to work together now, aren't we?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> So you'd rather have the government spend the money. Fair enough. I would not. I would like the government to freeze or cut spending and cut taxes for everyone. If they did so revenues would go up and they could start reducing the deficit and debt.
> 
> Sorry if you disagree. No reason for name calling though. After all we are all suppose to work together now, aren't we?


I tell you what, you stop lying and I won't call you names.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I tell you what, you stop lying and I won't call you names.



There ya go again. What is it you feel I have lied about?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Like I said, Chris, at least you're honest.
> 
> Here are some facts:
> 
> ...



but paperboy, it is disingenuous to ONLY look at the income tax as the only taxes being paid in taxes to our government and looking at it from only what portion of income taxes paid by the top 1% without looking at what portion of the nations earnings or wealth they make or own as well.

income taxes pull in about 1 trillion of the 3.3 trillion they are spending in their yearly budget now...where do you think the rest of the budget revenues come from?  

other taxes and borrowing....

to include what portion they pay of income taxes collected only, while not including all federal taxes including FICA, gas taxes, excise taxes, sin taxes, licences and fees that are collected from all of us is just plain wrong.....don't you think?

care


----------



## Care4all (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> If it will make your day then, yes, Ravi, I am a joke.
> 
> Now to my original question: Would you rather have the government spend that $5,000.00 or leave it the individual to spend?


i'd rather them have it, than BORROW IT from china or from the Saudis....when they cut spending enough that they are not borrowing the money to pay our bills for bailouts, etc...THEN, i would rather you have it to spend.



and the 3% hike IS ONLY ON WHAT you net over and above the 250k net....


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> but paperboy, it is disingenuous to ONLY look at the income tax as the only taxes being paid in taxes to our government and looking at it from only what portion of income taxes paid by the top 1% without looking at what portion of the nations earnings or wealth they make or own as well.
> 
> income taxes pull in about 1 trillion of the 3.3 trillion they are spending in their yearly budget now...where do you think the rest of the budget revenues come from?
> 
> ...



Perhaps. Above my pay grade, I suppose. I think everyone would be better off if:

a. There was a spending freeze. Better yet spending cuts.
b. No tax hikes on anyone or better yet tax cuts for everyone.
c. A lowering of the corporatre tax rate.

I think this would cause new jobs to be created and increase revenue.

And no more frickin' wars.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## editec (Nov 8, 2008)

Who would you rather have paying the additional taxes?

People making $250K a year (who have enjoyed huge tax breaks for the last seven years) or the next three generations of Americans?

That is the REAL question.

If someone is making $5,000 a week, I think they'll get by making only $4,820 a week, don't you?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

editec said:


> Who would you rather have paying the additional taxes?
> 
> People making $250K a year (who have enjoyed huge tax breaks for the last seven years) or the next three generations of Americans?
> 
> ...



The new taxes will not even come close to covering the trillion Obama proposes to spend let alone reducing the deficit and debt.

I would be OK to pay more tax if it went to reducing the deficit and debt. But it won't. 

Sigh.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 8, 2008)

message deleted by NObama


----------



## Care4all (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Perhaps. Above my pay grade, I suppose. I think everyone would be better off if:
> 
> a. There was a spending freeze. Better yet spending cuts.
> b. No tax hikes on anyone or better yet tax cuts for everyone.
> ...



there are many people who think like you, 

and there are many who do not...

mainly because it is not reality nor can it be for quite some time with the depth of our deficit, even with fiscal restraint.  Our national debt that president bush inherited was 5.6 trillion....that's 5.6 trillion accumilated debt in our entire country's history, since its existance paperboy!!!!  

AS we speak, our national debt is now nearing $11.5 TRILLION DOLLARS.

in just 8 years $6 trillion has been added to the national debt, DOUBLING our accumilated (in our history) debt...  we were spending about $250 billion to $300 billion in interest payments on that debt, yearly....yes, just the interest payments and NOW that we are over 11 trillion, the payments could go to $500 billion a year on just those interest payments for this national debt...

this ON TOP of the fact that we are nearing the time when SS surplusses will no longer be coming in for our congress to use, but instead a time when the federal budget will be hit with having to pay back the THE 6 TRILLION DOLLARS it borrowed from SS.

AND lastly all of this at a time when our economy is in the crapper and bringing in even less in revenues making our deficit grow larger even if major cuts were made.

SOOOOO, basically this is why i do not jump on to your theory....

NOT that the ideas aren't good and utopian....cuz they are imo as well...BUT they just don't fit in with the reality of what we are facing right now...in my opinion, it will probably take a tax hike on all of us, once we are out of our economic recession mess, along with major cuts, for many many decades, to get us out of this mess.

hope that answers some of your questions on why some of us, at least me, thinks differently!!!  

care


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> there are many people who think like you,
> 
> and there are many who do not...
> 
> mainly because it is not reality nor can it be for quite some time with the depth of our deficit, even with fiscal restraint.  Our national debt that president bush inherited was 5.6 trillion....that's 5.6 trillion accumilated debt in our entire country's history, since its existance paperboy!!!!



Yes, and Bush, Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the asylum added another trillion while we were all out at the movies this summer.

So now do you agree with increasing spending by another trillon as Obamas has promised?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Yes, and Bush, Obama, McCain, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the asylum added another trillion while we were all out at the movies this summer.
> 
> So now do you agree with increasing spending by another trillon as Obamas has promised?



Actually paperboy, it was an additional 7 trillion over 10 years for Mccain's campaign promise plans and an additional 5.2 trillion over 10 years for Obama's campaign promise plans according to some FACT CHECK thingy....

THEY BOTH, thru their tax plans and promises were going to add TRILLIONS to the national debt.  

care


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 8, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Just checked with the wife. 100 shares.
> 
> OK, listen, Columbo. Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is?
> 
> ...



I have a simple idea, why not give me the name of your corporation? I can then verify the information myself? also, you said earlier you had 3 employees, which is it 2 or 3? why would someone be stupid enough to want to share sensitive tax documents yet unwilling to even give me the name of their corp? you can end this argument once and for all. but since you are a fraud I know you will not. so are you saying you have a 100 shareholders?


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> I have a simple idea, why not give me the name of your corporation? I can then verify the information myself? also, you said earlier you had 3 employees, which is it 2 or 3? why would someone be stupid enough to want to share sensitive tax documents yet unwilling to even give me the name of their corp? you can end this argument once and for all. but since you are a fraud I know you will not. so are you saying you have a 100 shareholders?



awaiting answer..


----------



## jillian (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> awaiting answer..



No one is going to give you that kind of information regardless of their bona fides. And rightfully so.

If we're wrong about him, we're wrong. If we're right, we're right. But he doesn't have to prove anything by violating his own privacy.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> There ya go again. What is it you feel I have lied about?


That small businesses pay tax. That you will pay an additional 8,000 a year in tax. That a 3% tax increase on personal income will hurt small business.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

jillian said:


> No one is going to give you that kind of information regardless of their bona fides. And rightfully so.
> 
> If we're wrong about him, we're wrong. If we're right, we're right. But he doesn't have to prove anything by violating his own privacy.



Jillian,

Even though I do not agree with you on much my gut tells me you are a person of honesty and integrity. And besides we're both New Yorkers (as far as I can tell from your postings).

I'll be glad to PM you my website if you respect my right to privacy. You can ask me any questions you'd like via PM and report back to the board.

I am only bothering with this as I think it is important that people on this board get the viewpoint of someone who is a success and did it on their own with no help from government.

If you're interested let me.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

jillian said:


> No one is going to give you that kind of information regardless of their bona fides. And rightfully so.
> 
> If we're wrong about him, we're wrong. If we're right, we're right. But he doesn't have to prove anything by violating his own privacy.



I did not ask for personal information, everything I asked for can be verified legally through public records.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I am only bothering with this as I think it is important that people on this board get the viewpoint of someone who is a success and did it on their own with no help from government.


Like me? Or Jillian? Or Care?

Oh, wait, I forgot we're all welfare queens.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 9, 2008)

If you own a business, you can easily get taxable money off of your 1040.

Max out all tax deferred retirement accounts

2009 max 401K 16,500 from your income and the business can match which does not count towards your max contribution.  If you are 50 or over you are allowed an additional 5500 annual catch up contribution.

If you still can't get below the magic number, open another business with your primary business as its sole customer.  For example,

You own a business, we'll use a veterinarian since you mentioned that earlier.

If you own the building where you do business, the business can pay rent to a management company, the second business you own,  This management company can be paid, by your primary business to mow the lawn, plow the driveway, change light bulbs, paint a closet, clean the building etc etc.

Of course all the money your primary business pays to the management co is a write off so you lowered your profit in business #1

Now as owner of the management co, you can open another 401K  max it out, and match your contributions.  You can also have your manage co buy a new truck, a new snow blower a new lawn tractor etc as business expenses.

So don't fret, there are ways to play the tax game


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

> That small businesses pay tax.



I never said that but if I did it is only that as small business person I do not think of myself separate from my business. It's just an accounting matter. 




> That you will pay an additional 8,000 a year in tax.



That was a quick estimate off the top of my head. I simply multiplied $250,000 by 3% which is $7500.00. My apologies if I am in error.




> That a 3% tax increase on personal income will hurt small business.



This is my opinion. Sorry if you disagree.

Really the whole point of thread is would you rather have government spend people's money or let the individual spend it.

I think we've beaten this point to death and gotten people's opinions about.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Jillian,
> 
> Even though I do not agree with you on much my gut tells me you are a person of honesty and integrity. And besides we're both New Yorkers (as far as I can tell from your postings).
> 
> ...



The fact is the truth does not change, you have changed your story over and over again.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

To answer your question, I rather have individuals control their own money. But when in a hole, we have to stop digging. A tax hike to less then 2% of small business will not hurt the economy. I also find it ironic you make exactly 250k, the rate where Obama tax raise goes into effect.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> If you own a business, you can easily get taxable money off of your 1040.



I am not fretting about it. But you raise a very good point. And that is that people who make decent incomes can always find loopholes.

Another  loophole is to make income as a Capital Gain so you only pay 15%.

So you look into the future and as Obama increases spending by a trillon the middle class will eventually get hosed.

Another way people will get screwed is by Obama's proposal to remove the cap on what income is taxed for social security. Right now it caps at $97,500.00. He wants to remove the cap. If he does that what employer will want to give a person a raise beyond the $97,5000.00 as the employer will also have to pay an additional 6.25% toward FICA.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I am not fretting about it. But you raise a very good point. And that is that people who make decent incomes can always find loopholes.
> 
> Another  loophole is *to make income as a Capital Gain so you only pay 15%.*
> 
> ...



you cant make income into capital gain. capital gain is profit obtained from investment, the tax is applied to the return. you cant turn your income into capital gain. you will have to show for example how stock gained, the tax will apply to the difference in what you paid and actual earning.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 9, 2008)

That's an easy one to fix.  If you are the biggest salary on the books, and as owner, you should be, you can keep your income below 97K and put your spouse on the payroll even if he or she doesn't work at the business.

If you're paying other employees above 97K there's not much you can do but not too many small businesses have employees on the payroll with that kind of salary.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> That's an easy one to fix.  If you are the biggest salary on the books, and as owner, you should be, you can keep your income below 97K and put your spouse on the payroll even if he or she doesn't work at the business.
> 
> If you're paying other employees above 97K there's not much you can do but not too many small businesses have employees on the payroll with that kind of salary.



exactly, owners will often avoid the higher brackets by paying themself a modest salary, while gaining majority of income thru dividends etc. the dividends would be taxed at the lower rate, and their modest income fits into a bracket of lower income levels.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> To answer your question, I rather have individuals control their own money. But when in a hole, we have to stop digging. A tax hike to less then 2% of small business will not hurt the economy. I also find it ironic you make exactly 250k, the rate where Obama tax raise goes into effect.



Actually I made $298,109.00 last year but the taxable income was $193,924.00.  So Obama's 250K tax will not effect me but:

a. He will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which will effect me and a lot of people making a lot less than me.

b. He wants to nearly double the Capital Gains tax which will effect me and a lot of other people making a lot less than me.

c. He wants to remove the cap on what level of income you pay FICA on which will effect me and a lot of other people making a lot less than me.

d. It is my opinion that he will lower the income level he wants to tax.

That being said I could go along with paying more tax if he frooze or cut spending. But he wants to increase spending by a trillion.

The other thing that really bugs me about Obama is his statement in the Democratic Primary debate that he want to raise the Capital Gains tax for "fariness" NOT because it would generate more revenue since the moderator pointed out that lowering the Capital Gains tax increased revenue.

Video here:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm not worried about BHO's tax increases.  My wife and I aren't at 250K yet but even when we are, we'll never show that much income on a tax return.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> exactly, owners will often avoid the higher brackets by paying themself a modest salary, while gaining majority of income thru dividends etc. the dividends would be taxed at the lower rate, and their modest income fits into a bracket of lower income levels.



I play it very safe with the IRS. I don't like to do anything tricky and would rather pay more tax than raise red flags with the IRS. I went through a brutal IRS audit several years ago so if that ever happens again there will be no gray areas as our tax returns are straight as an arrow.

As for my business I am paid a salary. The rest is paid out as profit. The only advantage to this is you of course only pay FICA on the salary portion, not the profit portion.

There's nothing very complicated about it.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> I'm not worried about BHO's tax increases.  My wife and I aren't at 250K yet but even when we are, we'll never show that much income on a tax return.



Just pray you are never audited. It's not fun. But again. you make my point that the middle class will eventually get hosed. My wife couldn't hide a penny of income and still sleep at night. It's just her nature. My recommendation is instead of trying to hide money just make more of it.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Actually I made $298,109.00 last year but the taxable income was $193,924.00.  So Obama's 250K tax will not effect me but:
> 
> youtube]



earlier in the thread you said you report net income which exceeds $250k, why are you disagreeing with yourself? you also claimed sales of "about a million" what is it??


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> That's an easy one to fix.  If you are the biggest salary on the books, and as owner, you should be, you can keep your income below 97K and put your spouse on the payroll even if he or she doesn't work at the business.



For us there is only one advantage to being an S Corp and that is that we can pay me a salary under 97K and distribute the rest as profit which you  don't pay FICA on. It is totally above aboard and legal.

What is odd about it is determing what salary you should pay yourself as you could not find a job doing what I do. For years I did not even pay myself much of a salary; just took  profits for the most part because I didn't want to pay FICA if I didn't have to. When we switched CPAs, the new CPA warned us in no uncertain terms I needed to start paying myself a substantial salary as it would be a red flag not to. So now I do. Trust me you never want to get into a battle with the IRS. Play it safe and play it very conservatively.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> earlier in the thread you said you report net income which exceeds $250k, why are you disagreeing with yourself? you also claimed sales of "about a million" what is it??



I looked at line Line 37 of my return which gives the adjusted gross income of $298,109.00. That is from my 1040. But what you pay taxes on is Line 43 which is $193,924.00. My apologies.

On my 1120S for the  Corp total sales were $810,128.00 (Line 1C).

Now I've been very patient answering your questions. If you don't believe me that is fine. If Jillian would like me to PM her my personal info I'd be glad to do so provided she respects my privacy.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

So bk1983, what do you think about Obama's idea of fairness in the video below?





The Paperboy said:


> Actually I made $298,109.00 last year but the taxable income was $193,924.00.  So Obama's 250K tax will not effect me but:
> 
> a. He will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which will effect me and a lot of people making a lot less than me.
> 
> ...


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I looked at line Line 37 of my return which gives the adjusted gross income of $298,109.00. That is from my 1040. But what you pay taxes on is Line 43 which is $193,924.00. My apologies.
> 
> On my 1120S for the  Corp total sales were $810,128.00 (Line 1C).
> 
> Now I've been very patient answering your questions. If you don't believe that is fine. If Jillian would like me to PM her my personal info I'd be glad to do provided she respects my privacy.



no thats fine, it is obvious you are lying. no need for verification, your answers prove the point. I am done with the subject,,

on the middle class getting hosed, well thats just another lie you came up with. Agency after agency who looked into his policy have stated that 94% of taxpayers will see a cut. The middle class benefiting the most. 


also by your own figures the Obama plan will give you a tax cut of $4,156.62.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Just pray you are never audited. It's not fun. But again. you make my point that the middle class will eventually get hosed. My wife couldn't hide a penny of income and still sleep at night. It's just her nature. My recommendation is instead of trying to hide money just make more of it.



I'm not talking about anything illegal.  We don't hide a dime, not cash payments, not anything.

As I stated earlier, it's easy to get income off the books legally


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Karl bk1983 Rove:

Will I get a tax cut when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to lapse? No.

Will I get a tax cut when Obama doubles the Capital Gains Tax? No.

Will others making more than $97,5000 get tax cut when he removes the cap on FICA income? No.

And if he lowers the $250K threshold will you call him on it? Doubtful.

And when the deficit and debt ballon will you call him on it? Doubtful.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 9, 2008)

Start a new thread, pb, complaining about things that are actually true instead of this bullshit thread you've started. I don't know if you are lying or you are just not very bright about business, but at the very least I hope you've learned something.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Karl bk1983 Rove:
> 
> Will I get a tax cut when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to lapse? No.
> 
> ...



well since you are a fraud none of that applies to you, what will you have to pay capital gains tax on?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Start a new thread, pb, complaining about things that are actually true instead of this bullshit thread you've started. I don't know if you are lying or you are just not very bright about business, but at the very least I hope you've learned something.



I've learned that arguing with Libs who engage in personal attacks is not very good buinsess.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> I've learned that arguing with Libs who engage in personal attacks is not very good buinsess.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

bk1983 said:


> well since you are a fraud none of that applies to you, what will you have to pay capital gains tax on?



Perhaps you've heard of stocks. People have been unloading them by the truckload as  they are scared shit less of Obama's Capital Gains Tax increase he's promised.

So Karl, what do you think about Obama's idea of "fairness"?


----------



## SwingVoter (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Who would you rather have spend that money? The government or the small business person?



the government

but only because we need to pay down the debt from the Medicare Drug, No Child Left Behind Bush Socialism

once budget gets closer to being balanced, we can elect a more fiscally restrained Republican and give it back to the small business people


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> the government
> 
> but only because we need to pay down the debt from the Medicare Drug, No Child Left Behind Bush Socialism
> 
> once budget gets closer to being balanced, we can elect a more fiscally restrained Republican and give it back to the small business people



Do you think Obama will actually pay down the debt with the trillion in spending he has promised? If he does, he will have my support but I don't see that happening with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in charge.


----------



## SwingVoter (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> they are scared shit less of Obama's Capital Gains Tax increase he's promised.



NASDAQ is down nearly 40% over the 8 years Bush has been in office, so let's say out of fear of capital gains tax, it rises 0% over Obama's term, that's a big improvement


----------



## SwingVoter (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Do you think Obama will actually pay down the debt with the trillion in spending he has promised?



he'll reduce the deficit, though not pay down the debt, with the tax hikes, and a lot of the spending won't get through, either way better than thinking no taxes and cutting earmarks, which are a rounding error compared to socialist security and medicare, will do anything

I expect real deficit reduction to come after the '10 election when we'll have Obama's tax increases matched with an undoubtedly more GOP congress than we'll have the next 2 years


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Perhaps you've heard of stocks. People have been unloading them by the truckload as  they are scared shit less of Obama's Capital Gains Tax increase he's promised.
> 
> So Karl, what do you think about Obama's idea of "fairness"?



man you truly need help. people have been unloading stocks at a loss. capital gains tax does not apply to stock that dropped in value. The only tax policy that is fair would be a flat tax. But last I checked, no republican or democrat advocated for that. So Obama may be trying to achieve fairness, but it just cannot happen. Your lack of knowledge in this area is astounding.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> NASDAQ is down nearly 40% over the 8 years Bush has been in office, so let's say out of fear of capital gains tax, it rises 0% over Obama's term, that's a big improvement



Agreed. I'm just afraid that everyone's gonna be paying a whole lot more to Uncle Sam when all is said and done with little reduction of debt or deficit. Hope I'm wrong.

I'm off for a nice stroll with the wife to our quaint little downtown in gorgeous 67 degree Florida weather to pick up a $5.00 NY Times. 

You can take the New Yorker out of New York but it's hard to take the NY Times out of  the New Yorker. Gotta read my Section 2!

Cheers to all you good mannered posters from the left and right. Ain't America great!


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Agreed. I'm just afraid that everyone's gonna be paying a whole lot more to Uncle Sam when all is said and done with little reduction of debt or deficit. Hope I'm wrong.
> 
> I'm off for a nice stroll with the wife to our quaint little downtown in gorgeous 67 degree Florida weather to pick up a $5.00 NY Times.
> 
> ...



Have a nice day!


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

> man you truly need help. people have been unloading stocks at a loss.



You are showing so much ignorance that it is not even fun to debate with you anymore.

Does anyone else want to set Karl straight? She's become exceedingly boring.

I'm out.


----------



## NOBama (Nov 9, 2008)

editec said:


> Who would you rather have paying the additional taxes?
> 
> People making $250K a year (who have enjoyed huge tax breaks for the last seven years) or the next three generations of Americans?
> 
> ...


 
Who would I rather have paying additional taxes? Everybody.

The guy making 5k a week (which = 260k annually) in your example is already paying over 64k a year in tax but, you dont see a problem with adding another 3% to that, huh? 

Whats that additional 3% going to be used for again and hows it going to help future generations?

That the REAL question.

Paying tax for the good of the country is one thing. But, paying tax to put money in other peoples pockets is wrong. I dont care if its one tenth of one percent. Its 100% wrong.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

NObama said:


> Who would I rather have paying additional taxes? Everybody.
> 
> The guy making 5k a week (which = 260k annually) in your example is already paying over 64k a year in tax but, you dont see a problem with adding another 3% to that, huh?
> 
> ...



Yea, fuck those poor and sick people, I need a new Lexus!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> Yea, fuck those poor and sick people, I need a new Lexus!



Typical liberal.

you don't want to pay more taxes so you must hate sick people and babies and puppies


----------



## Dis (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> Yea, fuck those poor and sick people, I need a new Lexus!



If a good portion of those "poor" people put even half the energy into changing their situation as they did holding their hand out, they'd probably BE a lot further in life.

And if I want a new Lexus, who are you to say otherwise?  My buying that Lexus COULD just be keeping your sorry ass in a job.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

Dis said:


> If a good portion of those "poor" people put even half the energy into changing their situation as they did holding their hand out, they'd probably BE a lot further in life.
> 
> And if I want a new Lexus, who are you to say otherwise?  My buying that Lexus COULD just be keeping your sorry ass in a job.



Buying a Lexus is the most important thing we can do as a country!


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> Buying a Lexus is the most important thing we can do as a country!



If GM built a car half as good as a Lexus they wouldn't be coming cap in hand to borrow 50 billion from the the frickin' taxpayers.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> If GM built a car half as good as a Lexus they wouldn't be coming cap in hand to borrow 50 billion from the the frickin' taxpayers.



If any of the presidents since Carter had believed in energy conservation, we would be in much better shape than we are.

Al Gore did, but Republican voter suppression in Florida kept him from getting elected.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> If any of the presidents since Carter had believed in energy conservation, we would be in much better shape than we are.
> 
> Al Gore did, but Republican voter suppression in Florida kept him from getting elected.



Al Gore and conserving energy do not belong in the same sentence.

But there appears to be a real solution on the horizon:



> Neighborhood nuclear power plants coming in five years



Story here

Looks like someone is onto a real solution.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Al Gore and conserving energy do not belong in the same sentence.
> 
> But there appears to be a real solution on the horizon:
> 
> ...



Forgive me if I am sceptical.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

> Al Gore did, but Republican voter suppression in Florida kept him from getting elected.



By the way this will go against your little fantasy about Republican voter suppression but the real voter suppression came from the media when they called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. 

Story Link here

Now I wonder why the media never reports on that?


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> By the way this will go against your little fantasy about Republican voter suppression but the real voter suppression came from the media when they called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore.
> 
> Story Link here
> 
> Now I wonder why the media never reports on that?



Because no one's vote was taken away from them, so it wasn't voter suppression.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> Forgive me if I am sceptical.



Time will tell but it sounds a lot more realistic than anything else I've read about.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> Because no one's vote was taken away from them, so it wasn't voter suppression.



I see. Can you please provide me with a list of the voters whose votes were taken away from them by Republicans.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Time will tell but it sounds a lot more realistic than anything else I've read about.



I like T. Boone's plan. 

Switch 18 wheel trucks and public vehicles to natural gas. 

Build wind farms and electric cars.

Screw the Arabs.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> I like T. Boone's plan.
> 
> Switch 18 wheel trucks and public vehicles to natural gas.
> 
> ...



Just read today that T. Boone is having trouble getting the financing done.

I agree with you on "screw the Arabs". I say use every resource we have including off shore drilling until we come with a better solution.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Just read today that T. Boone is having trouble getting the financing done.
> 
> I agree with you on "screw the Arabs". I say use every resource we have including off shore drilling until we come with a better solution.



We have plenty of natural gas, coal, and wind power.

We just need to harnass it. 

We also waste a huge amount of energy.


----------



## sithroya (Nov 9, 2008)

more tax cuts for middle class = more consumers = more business for small business.

it has been proven under bill clinton already.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 10, 2008)

Chris said:


> We have plenty of natural gas, coal, and wind power.
> 
> We just need to harnass it.
> 
> We also waste a huge amount of energy.


And sun power out the kazoo in our middle country and desserts...and Florida!  Every home should be retrofitted with solar electric or the minimum of solar water....and have a recharge plug for their electric car...this would be a great stimulus with rebates as well and cause this industry to manufacture more of the solar panes and parts for such, and the people installing such and the accountants to oversee the businesses and receptionsists answering the phones and the managers to oversee the sales staff and stores to show your product in and so on and so forth!!!!

On a Side Bar...
And speaking of finite resources, WATER....it is sickening the way we use purified drinking water to flush near every toilet in America!  Why the hell do we use drinking water for THAT?  What a waste!

Someone needs to invent a cheap system that could be attached to your drains from the shower and sink to then go in to the tanks of the toilets so that this is what is used to flush them.

On another note, regarding water...a few years back my husband and I went to Bermuda on Vacation for a week.  

We took a tour with a guide, walking through one of their bigger towns and he pointed out how all of the roofs were built in Bermuda to give each home their own water supply...that their cascading tiles on the Hip shaped roofs, with an interconnecting pipe system of drains, were specifically designed to capture the rain water and filter the dirt and sediment out of it, as it worked its way down to the retaining tank and final filtering system on the lower floor or in their basement.

It was amazing how simple a design, gave every home MORE than enough water for them individually without needing any kind of City/Municiple Works

I thought, why the heck isn't every new home in Florida or in California built in this manner?


Care


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 10, 2008)

Chris said:


> We have plenty of natural gas, coal, and wind power.
> 
> We just need to harnass it.
> 
> We also waste a huge amount of energy.



Whatever it takes.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 10, 2008)

I have to commend you, pb, for your untiring effort to keep rich people from being part of the progressive tax system.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 10, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I have to commend you, pb, for your untiring effort to keep rich people from being part of the progressive tax system.



They are the progressive tax system.


----------

