I started a business from scratch, now employ 6 people and it is a very solid business. My income grows every year. Problem is, I owe the IRS constantly and it's threatening my business. 15 years and I have gained nothing, and it's not because of George Bush. Bill Clinton nailed us in the 90's. It has been a complete waste of time. I gained nothing and it's all because of taxes. Not the economy. Not Free Trade! Taxes! Money redistributed instead of freely flowing through new employees and growth! EXPLAIN!!!! I live in NY State! Liberal Capital! I am supposed to work 60+ hours a week so some idiot doesn't have to? So some government employee can collect a cushy pension for barely working? Explain the facts and save the rhetoric because you people have no idea what is happening.
2007-07-27
02:13:26
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Stereotypemebecauseyouknow
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
Hey, Bob A...I'd love to show you the books. We are cranking. Problem is, the more you make as a self employed bz man, the more you pay. I have one of the best tax attorneys in the city and he'll tell you that you cannot get ahead until you are super rich. Clinton passed the largest tax increase in history. Bush has spent like a liberal. NY State is taxing and regulating us to death. Our state has every program imaginable, and our government employees have every single need taken care of at 55. No work neccessary. The unions run the show. I can only hope you gets some balls and try to run your own business.
2007-07-27
02:48:15 ·
update #1
Government employees in the State of NY Republican? Right. Are you for real?
2007-07-27
02:49:50 ·
update #2
I would sell and move.
New York is so over the top with regulation, taxation and corrupt labor unions protected by the government, you can't possibly win unless you play ball. If the federal government cut taxes by half today, New York would still grind you into submission.
I answer because I am a true liberal. Not of the modern hippie variety, but in a classical sense. 'Liberty for All' means economic liberty too.
However, I can't explain. I can only sympathize. Look to the west. Maybe your freedom awaits you. Good luck.
2007-07-27 03:54:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by the_defiant_kulak 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
If Bill Clinton "nailed us" so badly in the 90's, why hasn't George Bush fixed the problem? He's had seven years (and a Republican Congress for the first four)!
You should be complaining about all the excessive corporate welfare the Bush administration has given big business in the form of tax breaks, government grants, government bail-outs, and contracts. That's a far bigger expenditure than social welfare programs.
You should be complaining about the runaway spending Bush keeps pouring into an unconstitutional, illegal, unjustifiable, immoral war against a country that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States....and the high taxes and economic depression that will result shortly after Bush leaves office and his predecessor has to try and clean up the mess. Believe me, things aren't going to get any better for your small business, thanks to Bush and his reckless economic policies. -RKO- 07/27/07
2007-07-27 10:16:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I totally agree with Don C....this isn't just a Clinton or democrat problem Why do you so-called "conservatives" always blame your problems on liberals? You people aren't really all that conservative at all! Bush has been the biggest waste of money on planet earth! I too work very hard and hate to think my taxes go to support Bush and the lazy S.O.B.'s who work for the government. Not all, mind you...we do need some government services and therefore employees. I also abhor the system that pay lazy white trash to stay home. The system that rewards illegal immigrants by paying them more money to have more babies! This is both a republican and democrat conjob on us. Republicans also love the cheap labor...it makes them wealthy! What about the money we put into social security? Bush has all but wiped that out too! Remember, BOTH parties tend to be socialistic in nature....the Gay Ol Party is just better at concealing their true agenda. Now, how about asking a con-jobber to explain their position.....they will list all the lies they were taught since they were little Nazis'......
2007-07-27 09:34:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by little timmie 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The problem is not repugs vs dems, its how the shell game is played.
We've got a government that needs every buck it can get from you and everyone else.
I don't care who is playing the game, dems or repugs, you get shafted no matter what.
If they give you a tax break, it is really a tax shift and shaft where fee's are increased, to taxes paid on imports. If they give you a tax break in one area, it is shifted to another.
Many of the problems are things such as run away entitlement, pork barrel projects, every Tom Dick and Harry wanting a part of the government pie, plus "special" people clamoring for more government protection while some poor smo who can't make ends meet because of unfortunate circumstances couldn't get a dime out of the government if he tried. There is simply not enough to go around while the government struggles to provide, all while we spend billions on two failed wars and an increasing failed war on terror.
Then we have the balls to say the government is for the people when anyone knows, who has a gnats level of intelligence, its for BIG Business.
Something gotta give and its going to get ugly, regardless who is in power, each party is culpable in the most egregious fashion.
Peace
Jim
.
2007-07-27 10:20:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm sorry you're having such lousy times... Taxes suck for small business. Large businesses can at least have the army of lawyers to find the tax loopholes for them.
The small guy gets screwed. Small business owners, people who work a 9-5 job, and others just can't make enough money end up paying the majority of our nation's taxes....
Ironically, I blame the Republicans for this mess because they let the super-duper-rich get away with probably less taxes than the average joe at the end of the day while expecting the hard-working Americans to foot the bill for everything.
If the rich paid their fair share, the working class and small business owners might not have to pay in quite as much... But they have all their loopholes and tax shelters and lobbyists and representatives making sure they rarely pay a dime on their massive fortunes.
Yes, I am a liberal.
2007-07-27 09:22:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I agrtee with RKO, Bush has been president for almost 7 years and the first 4 with a 'never say no' congress. How is your business failing liberals' fault?
2007-07-27 10:31:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by punxy_girl 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
What does this have to do with liberals? It appears your problems are nothing to do with conservatives or liberals..you have a BAD ACCOUNTANT! If you really were a businessman.. you would know this, so I personally think full of crap. You're probably just another troll that wants to scream LIBERAL to incite anger.
2007-07-27 09:27:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Don c nailed it for you.. Liberals are pro working class ,sorry but look elsewhere to lay the blame and as mentioned above you will find it lays squarely at the Republican door!
2007-07-27 09:33:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE COLLECTING A CUSHY PENSION IS PROBABLY A REPUBLICAN
WE NOW HAVE THE LARGEST GOVERNMENT EVER!!
THANKS GEORGE & THE g o p
always spouting off about small government and then presto we have the largest government and deficit EVER !!
You don't actually believe that with this monumental gov. set up by the Republicans that we won't sooner or later have to see a tax increase?
Just as it was when Clinton had to clean up Reagan's Voodoo economic plan !!
What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
2007-07-27 09:20:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
hey how about u don't blame every thing on the scapegoat liberals and stop complaining and dig yourself outta the hole
2007-07-27 10:42:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋