Business owners share your story

You need to get out more...and talk to other business owners.

 

The avon business is doing quite well, it is best to find a niche that works well in a bad economy

the part time lawn business took a hit and never recovered even with the low cost laborers due to the housing crisis.

now our main income comes from my significant other who has his liqour license and owns a bar and grill, more people are coming during these bad times and he's been posting the highest profit margins since he opened 10 years ago.

 

I appreciate your condolence on my failure post... and it is difficult to separate this specific argument from my personal life but... I am not trying to be an ass... I have 7 guys... but most of my clients are restructuring, or waiting to see if restructure is necessary because of Obamacare. It has an impact on me... and again... I am not blaming my companies impending doom on Obama. That would feel great. I would love to... but then I would be something I am not, and something I rail against. I failed to make us irreplaceable. These peoples lives are my failure. I didn't secure THEIR jobs. I did it wrong. There are plenty of people doing well... regardless of the circumstance. My market, and my skills as a businessman are what failed my people. I own it. It is hard to do, especially amongst strangers... but I do so because I believe what I believe. I am a terrible businessman. You will not find a better tech. I focus on my ignorance of business as the reason for my inability to succeed as a company because it is accurate. It is now logged. People in my same circumstance are creating jobs. (*)(*)(*)(*) blaming the CIC or congress... this is still America, and I alone (*)(*)(*)(*)ed it up. I will provide for mine. I will no longer provide for those who, honestly, weren't personally vested in my company... but I vested them.

It sucks.

I am a conservative. It wasn't the economy, though it contributed. It wasn't Obama, though it contributed. It was, ultimately, my failure to find an avenue to grow my company. People are making money. I am not.

I hate you guyth.

But I own my (*)(*)(*)(*).

One day this post or one other in the thread will be thrown in my face.
I urready told you. I own this.

 

Um yeah. Okay. Nice dodge. I guess Glenn didn't tell you the specifics?

 

What is your business?

Why are you here?

To describe pyramid businesses you have no affiliation with to us?



WTF do YOU do for a living?

 

They have one of those portable liquor stores that sells off the back of lawn-mowers to their down-line distributors...

 

Aren't you an optimist?

She goes to the mailbox once a month for a living.

 

My name is Dick, as in Cheney. I am profiting quite well, thank you.

On behalf of Halliburton, I would like to thank all US taxpayers for swallowing the fairy tale that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

You have no idea how much we made out of that.

And how much we tried to save under-feeding the troops.

 

There was a thread something like this one once and it got no where.

So I have just one simple question for the *******s, and I would really like to hear
the answer, about 51% of Americans don't pay any fed tax.
This includes those who get back more than they paid in.

So my question is this, why is it fair that the rich should pay more while 51%
of Americans don't pay at all?

...

 

Who cares about fairness? it's more efficient.

 

The President of the United States CLEARLY stated, without equivocation, that Saddam Hussein did have WMD's.

The first president to say and believe that was named William Clinton.

 

The 51% do pay taxes. I believe you're referring to income taxes.
It's not fair and never has been. Oh well. There are LOTS of things that are done better in other countries than in America. Are you going to move?
Tell ya what. Try The Ukraine. The women are gorgeous and you won't whine about taxes all the time. Plus, you'll get free healthcare and if you don't like the free services, you can pay for an upgrade.
Paying taxes is part of the obligation we have for living in the country. It is the same in virtually all countries.
The government gets to decide what is or is not fair. This is the same in all countries.
This doesn't seem that complicated but you asked.

 

2009, 140,000,000 Tax returns filed. 71,400,000 (51%) of those received 100% of their withholding returned, paying only FICA taxes. Of those 71.4 million, 23,000,000 received EITC, thereby effectively returning their FICA taxes as well as their withholding. 68,600,000(49%) paid 100% of our personal income tax and they also paid the highest amounts of FICA taxes too.
68,600,000 is only 22% of our 311,000,000 population [not counting 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 Illegals]
Obviously 22% picking up every tab for 78% is not fair. But more important than fair, is it sustainable? Especially since in 2008, 47% skated and 53% of tax returns paid 100% of the personal income tax. That seems an unsustainable ratio, but 2009 is considerably worse and 2010 when those complete figures are available will look even worse I suspect.

 

So then do you think we should lower the bracket threshold and collect more taxes that way; or increase taxes across the board?

 

The "INFAMOUS" Bush tax cuts from 2003 until 2010, "SAVED" the rich $490 billion in that period. But the Bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone a great deal more than they did for the rich. In that same period, the "not rich" saved $2.1 TRILLION in income taxes. So had Bush not saved the rich anything. The nation would have had $490 billion more to waste or spend depending on one's attitude. Certainly that would have helped, but it would not have SOLVED anything. Had there been no Bush tax cuts for ANYONE. From 2003 to 2010, the govt would have collected $2.59 TRILLION more, in revenue.

So $490 billion from the rich, or $2.59 TRILLION 'across the board' using Clinton tax rates? You're a businessman, which is more help to the govt. And which is more help to EVERYMAN?

 

The Clinton Tax Rates. They definitely helped the rich several times more than the "everyman" you speak of. It's math.
The $490B went to 2% of the population. That means 50 times more people had to divide up five times more money ($2.1 T).
The "everyman" benefitted approximately 1/10 as much as the rich did.
So right now, we have this little problem with the deficit. It's not the end of the world but it should be handled. That is why, even though I would take a hit, I would favor returning to the Clinton rates.

I'd also like to quit giving money away to big companies. My company doesn't get breaks and I hire 100% Americans and pay my taxes 100% in America. How the hell does the GOP think no one's going to notice that shid??? But that's another debate

 

Juggle percentages as much as you wish and make up as many percentages as you wish. The dollars and SENSE remains. Taxing the rich at Clinton rates brings in $70 billion more per year. That's not a percentage, that's the spendable amount of money. That is a popcorn fart in a deficit hurricane, compared to and AVERAGE DEMOCRAT LIBERAL DEFICIT of $1,450,000,000,000.00.PER YEAR $1,380,000,000,000.00 is the AVERAGE DEFICIT, PER YEAR, left after $70 billion more taxes.
You liberals complain constantly about the plight of the middle class. Bush saved the middle class $2.1 trillion and you toss that away like it was 11 cents. The liberal double talk, simultaneously out of both sides of your mouth. And PULEEEASE no more claims that you aren't a liberal. You may not be a registered Democrat, but you're a liberal to your bones. Admit who you are. I don't deny being a conservative. I'm just not a registered Republican.

And it was YOU complaining about Reagan cutting deductions on interest of appliances, cars etc. The fact is that our tax code was as screwed up then as it is today. THEN The Congress and the president, tossed out the monstrous tax code and replaced it with a simplified code. THAT is the tax code we use today with roughly 77,000 pages of changes since Reagan's time. Then ALL interest of every kind was fully deductible. That was a massive incentive for the public to go deeper and deeper in debt. A home was a reasonable purchase to go into debt, so mortgage interest was the only interest left deductible. As we now know, THAT should have been eliminated as well.

 

LOL!!!! Okay um, hate to burst your lovely little pure red bubble but there's no getting around it: YOU PROVIDED THE NUMBERS!
All I did was elementary math. I'm sorry, I must have done LIBERAL Math! Okay, tell you what. You take the same numbers, divide them by the same number of recipients and let me know what Conservative Math comes up with.

Oh Wait! I get it! ooh ooh! Okay so if I give $100 to ten people and $1000 to one thousand people, according to Conservative math, the second group got more! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Jeez dude. When you're so desperate, you're calling Math Liberal, well WTF!

Okay I admit it! I'm as Liberal as Math is!!!!

And as EASY as it would be to logically tear you up on your whole Reagans deductions thing, I'm feeling benevolent (that's a word us (*)(*)(*)(*) "intelektual elitist who do math n stuff" use to say nice
So I will laugh hysterically at that one another time. Right now I have to explain to my lovely bride why I'm laughing so hard at my friggin Ipad.
This place is REALLY entertaining!

 

Grew up on a family farm but grandfather, uncle and father owned a contracting/developing company as well. I got my electrical license and was their full time electrical sub-contractor and did a few houses on the side during college. It was quite easy to make a good amount of money while it was just me, however, the ridiculous costs associated with adding employees led me away from it. I sold my half of the business and went to work as an accountant.

Last I heard, my partner has some debts back home to supply houses and is having a very hard time making ends meet. The cost of business in construction is ridiculous to say the least.

My family sold the construction business and opened a meat and 3 with no employees. They enjoy it, but apparently, it is more of a hobby while they live off of their savings and a meager farming profit. They also have the benefit of actually expecting a little SS benefits very soon. My grandpa draws 12k per year, lol.

 

The Clinton tax rates only worked with the Gingrich spending levels.

I had a few associates, and will probably do so again once the POTUS who can get up on any given day and smear any given business is gone.

 

JD?
CPA?
Arch E?

 

You're trying to prove that the poor are poor? I believe that's why they are called poor. Do they feel financial bites more than the rich? Of course they do, they're poor. Taking more taxes from the rich neither solves the debt or deficit problems but it doesn't help the poor in any way either. You just want to prattle on about the poor, wallow in it. I'm talking about what solves our fiscal problems, not wailing uselessly about the poor. If they don't want to be poor, they need to find a way to earn money and then wealth. The nation is 14 t in debt and we've dumped a few trillion on the poor in the last 50 years. They're still poor and there are more of them. Is that another thing that you liberals crack up about? How you screw the poor on a daily basis and still get their vote? The fact that you wish to avoid and deflect any way possible even in your nonsensical hysterical way is that we have no avenues of increased taxation that solves our problems. VASTLY reduced spending is the only area where the massive sums needed are available. But that takes away the liberals best tool, buying the votes of the terminally gullible. Not that Republicans haven't used the same tool.
But We're OUT of money.. Taxing what you described as a small number of people won't help.

Oh by the way
"Oh Wait! I get it! ooh ooh! Okay so if I give $100 to ten people and $1000 to one thousand people, according to Conservative math, the second group got more! "

Not any conservative math I ever posted. But liberals making up their own history for the convenience of their lies is routine.

 

Okay, you're obviously very emotional and um "having feelings".

I commented on math. You provided the numbers. Your cliam was that the numbers you provided, proved the "everyman" benefitted even more than the rich, from the Bush tax cuts. I took your numbers and just gave you the mathmatical result. According to your numbers, the "everyman" got about 1/10 the benefit of the rich.
Now you have just goen and gotten all upset again. You're rambling a bit - unless you're going to show me where I wrote something about the poor.
I've just had a nice, calm and okay - a bit snarky - discussion about the deficit and such. Seems to me, we need to raise taxes and lower spending. That's just math. That's all.
It doesn't matter how much I make if I spend more than I have.
It doesn't matter how much I cut spending if I don't make enough to cover essential expenses.
The big argument is over two things:
1. What is "essential"?
2. Should we increase income.
Not that complex.
So tell you what. I'm going to go pour myself a Glenfiddich 18 year old single malt. Then I'm going to light up a very politically incorrect Monte Cristo. There's another post (somewhere) on this very subject in which I've outlined what I would get rid of. Stuff like NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, Giveaways to foreign countries, companies and so on. Obviously, very Liberal.
Why don't you take a look and see if we as far apart as you think we are.

It kinda seems like your view is simply "Whatever the Dems want is always wrong and evil and the GOP is absolutely right on all counts."
If that's the case, then I disagree with you as much as I do the LibDems - who insist that NPR is somehow "Vital to America". BS. They might as well call it LPR. And you know what the L stands for. Apparently, it's my first initial

 

Found what I wrote. Here's my l'il ol' "liberal" view in response to another poster:

* Agreed on cutting salaries at Fed Reserve but bankers are not fed employees.
* I'd keep Air Force One. It's a security thing. Dump ALL the (*)(*)(*)(*) limos! Let the GOPers take their cars to work and the ultra-green Dems can walk or ride a bike.
* Yup, Let's get out of Afghanistan, Iraq and close about 1/3 or more of our foreign bases. They are not grateful and we don't need to spend the money.
* End all giveaways to foreign countries.
* End all special tax breaks to Big Oil, MNE's and anyone else who doesn't hire 100% American Employees.
* End tax breaks to churches.
* Sorry Libs, I don't see a need to pay NPR, half the museums, National Endowment for the Arts etc.. I would keep funding libraries and schools though.
* Make lobbying on behalf of corps, unions et.al special industries illegal.
* Tax foreign imports at minimum, equal to the rate that country taxes us.
* Get rid of a BUNCH of government agencies. Yes I know that would mean jobs so not necessarily right away. But an example of one that is just plain stupid is the Rural Electrification Agency. What is it's role? Make sure that rural America has electricity. I think we passed the need for that one quite a while ago.
* Get rid of HSA. It hasn't accomplished what it was supposed to do - just the opposite.
Just a few thoughts that immediately come to mind.

 

Here... let me ask some loaded/rhetorical questions.

Were Clinton's tax hikes applied in a recession, or one of the largest economic boons in history due to the advent of the internet?

Did these tax hikes help us avoid a recession?

In that recession that the next president inherited, did the tax hikes help?

Did the next president then raise or lower taxes to recover from sed recession?

Was this not the fastest recovery from a recession in US history?

I look forward to your... whatever.