Taxes and Politicians

[pontooner]

Tax rates are at their lowest levels in over 50 years and yet we still have unemployment over 9%.


The middle class always has and always will drive the economy, anything that takes money out of the middle classes hands will only make things worse.

[eddie_m]

Not making a pro/con argument here and don't want to kick off a big debate, but... I know a guy who did something like this. He's the uncle of one of my friends. He owned a small furniture manufacturing company in Mississippi in the 80's. His employees voted to unionize, so he closed the company down. His argument was that they didn't risk investing in a new business and just wanted to leech away the profits once it was up and running.

[vetbass]

Tax rates are at their lowest levels in over 50 years and yet we still have unemployment over 9%.


The middle class always has and always will drive the economy, anything that takes money out of the middle classes hands will only make things worse.

Couldnt agree more pontooner--when everybody figures out the middle class drive this economy and not the wealthy the economy will turn around

i am a small business owner and let me tell you if a 3-4% tax increase forces you to have to fire employees than your business is not in a healthy position to start with--hiring or laying off employees is a decision you make based on consumption of your product and overall health of your business not taxes

mr.crowley is probably making several million a year based on taxes or should i say if hes runnin an efficient business hes making several million a year--and hes talking about firing employees is his taxes are raised a few percent

he wont fire anybody because he knows less employees will hurt his busineeses productivity and profitability

sounds like an attempt to scare folks into voting for him to keep his already low tax rates

sorry for the long post--headin down to ky lake tommorow for 10 days so excited i wont be able to sleep tonight

[GeoFisher]

VET.....you are completely and utterly full of BUNK..........

So, let me get this straight........you are saying a 3 or 4 % increase in taxes is no big deal for a small business owner.........JUST what the HELL business are you in.

And I really don't understand your math??

A 3 or 4% increase in taxes on Gross revenue may in fact be a 10 or 15% decrease in net profits..........do you UNDERSTAND THAT??

So lets say you make 100k in gross revenue, and pay 25% taxes. So you pay 25k in taxes. Now lets say that you have other "stuff".....payroll, equipment, whatever, that amounts to 50k a year, and that 50k is fixed number. So now out of that 100k you make a year, 75k is operating costs and TAX. So you get to take home 25k.....MAN you're filthy rich right........

Well hold on...........Vet thinks it is no big deal to pay 3 or 4 or 5 percent MORE in taxes. Lets make it 4%. Son now instead of 25k in taxes you pay 29k in taxes. So now instead of 25k in real dollars you take home, you now get to take home 21k. 4k less. So that 4k is nearly 20% of your take home.

NICE.

Yea, I HATE TAXES.....and I doubt you have your own business, and I doubt it is successful, because not many can "afford" an additional 4% in taxes as you state.

Later,

Geo

[vetbass]

geo my 3-4% increase i referred to was the increase in income tax back to 39% clinton level not small business or corporate tax

taxes on small business have not increased lately in any significant ways-and i assure the current level of taxation on my businesses is by no means unfair in any way and if the repubs would allow the jobs act to pass my business would save a load of money by decreasing the employer payroll tax

if taxes and overhead account for 50% of gross than your business has problems

your doubts about my business are very wrong my friend--i own 3 very successful businesses and employ 50 plus folks--i am part of that 1% everybody talks about and i would much rather pay higher taxes myself than see the middle class folks have to pay them

taxes affect middle class folks and their spending habits much more than those taxes affect successful small business owners

no middle class means no successful small business

no more postin for me headin to the lake early tommorow--although its been fun tonite--later

[Chubminnow]

I agree the letter tells it like it is...but it doesn't impress me much. He chose his road and I chose mine...I bet I'm just as happy as he is and with a lot less things on my mind.

Michael A. Crowley has an "A" personallity or mindset...I'm glad there's people like him around....but his lifestyle ain't for me.

Less is more...at least for me it is anyway...this especially holds true as I grow older.

[MsgMills]

I read the letter in full and totally agree with this guys thinking....

We get a flat tax approved for everyone and i do mean everyone...

But the main thing we need to do is get a repeal done on the Retirement system that Congress enacted for themselves.....No way in the world is it fair that after only 1 term in Office does it call for that you should receive your entire annual salary for life as a Retirement income...How fair is that to the rest of the American people who work their entire lives to earn a Retirement...

Plus the Military put their lives on the line each and every day to protect the American people. They retire after 20 years od Service only to receive 50% of their base salary. Or after 30 years, they receive 75% of their base pay.

So tell me how it's fair for a person elected into Congress and even as the POTUS deserve to be paid their full salary after only serving 1 term in office as a Federal employee. Never once putting their lives in harms way as the soldiers, sailors, Marines or Airmen of the Military.....

Srry for ranting so much, but the system is flawed big time and needs to be equal across the board for all people of the United States.....

[Tyme2fish]

I read the letter in full and totally agree with this guys thinking....

We get a flat tax approved for everyone and i do mean everyone...

But the main thing we need to do is get a repeal done on the Retirement system that Congress enacted for themselves.....No way in the world is it fair that after only 1 term in Office does it call for that you should receive your entire annual salary for life as a Retirement income...How fair is that to the rest of the American people who work their entire lives to earn a Retirement...

Plus the Military put their lives on the line each and every day to protect the American people. They retire after 20 years od Service only to receive 50% of their base salary. Or after 30 years, they receive 75% of their base pay.

So tell me how it's fair for a person elected into Congress and even as the POTUS deserve to be paid their full salary after only serving 1 term in office as a Federal employee. Never once putting their lives in harms way as the soldiers, sailors, Marines or Airmen of the Military.....

Srry for ranting so much, but the system is flawed big time and needs to be equal across the board for all people of the United States.....

Amen

[FlyLie]

I pass on this one. Admittedly, I need to get up to speed on the contents of Canines 9-9-9. To date I have heard/read a lot or rhetoric, but very little detail on the economic impact of the 9-9-9 plan. Links to info are much appreciated..

[RoadToad]

I read the letter in full and totally agree with this guys thinking....

We get a flat tax approved for everyone and i do mean everyone...

But the main thing we need to do is get a repeal done on the Retirement system that Congress enacted for themselves.....No way in the world is it fair that after only 1 term in Office does it call for that you should receive your entire annual salary for life as a Retirement income...How fair is that to the rest of the American people who work their entire lives to earn a Retirement...

Plus the Military put their lives on the line each and every day to protect the American people. They retire after 20 years od Service only to receive 50% of their base salary. Or after 30 years, they receive 75% of their base pay.

So tell me how it's fair for a person elected into Congress and even as the POTUS deserve to be paid their full salary after only serving 1 term in office as a Federal employee. Never once putting their lives in harms way as the soldiers, sailors, Marines or Airmen of the Military.....

Srry for ranting so much, but the system is flawed big time and needs to be equal across the board for all people of the United States.....

You're right, that would be completely unfair. Thankfully, that's not at all how it really works. This report from the Congressional Research Service sums it up pretty well. If you don't want to believe their own report, do a Google search for congressional retirement system or something similar and you'll find the same info on plenty of other sites:

Summary
Prior to 1984, neither federal civil service workers nor Members of Congress paid taxes to Social Security, nor were they eligible for Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-335).

Members of Congress first elected in 1984 or later are covered automatically under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), unless they decline this coverage. Those who already were in Congress when Social Security coverage went into effect could either remain in CSRS or change their coverage to FERS. Members are now covered under one of four different retirement arrangements:

! Full coverage under both CSRS and Social Security;

! The “CSRS Offset” plan, which includes both CSRS and Social Security, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by Social Security contributions and benefits;

! FERS plus Social Security; or

! Social Security alone.

Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($97,500 in 2007). Members covered by FERS also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $97,500 of salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RL30631.pdf

The one problem I have with it is the crooks who have been removed for ethics and rules violations, that are still collecting pensions THAT part needs fixing.

[bassin_bug]

I also received one of those letters and found it very interesting and well explained.