So who determined how much oil was there to begin with, so that we know we've hit the 50% mark? Without KNOWING how much oil there was to begin with, you cannot say we've used 50%. It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically.
Except, of course, the people whose money is confiscated (via ever-increasing taxation) and used to research things like the sexual mating habits of moose, or fund a new crucifix-in-urine exhibit. They have no choice to decide if their assets return anything of value; it's just a Government-enforced loss of assets. But hey, it's just Someone Else's Money so it doesn't matter, right?
Cool. I guess the company you work for has zero investors, no owners, and no loans or lines of credit or payment terms with any entity. So how is your meth lab doing?
They are about as free market as you can get. A private C or S corp provides limited liability for the owners - they only risk the assets they choose to risk (short of fraud or criminal activities - those can piece the "corporate veil"). Likewise with an LLC. It offers the same legal liability limits as a corporation, but with the simplicity of operation of a partnership (which offers no corporate liability protection).
.
In this day and age, you simply cannot just "start a company" and do it without a permit. The Government wants its cut of taxes, wants to know you're paying your taxes and fees and permits, covering your employees, etc. An LLC is about as free-market as you're going to find - and it also protects your personal assets from any action.
Take a look at an S Corp and C Corp. Or even an LLC. What I'm describing covers ALL of those. Your liability is limited to the assets you personally put into the corporation. It does not extend beyond what was put into the company. Put in a little, risk a little. But chances are that restricting assets and capital at an early stage will also restrict the opportunities for growth. It's about as free-market as you can get.
??? Investors sit on their asses? Guess what - if they didn't put up the money to fund your company, you wouldn't have a company - or it would be a lot smaller. Investors risk their capital so you don't have to. That's the concept of investors - others fund your venture for you, so you put in the labor (risking your time), they put in their assets (risking their money), and if it succeeds you both are rewarded monetarily.
So you'd like to indemnify risk for people? Why - so you can share the reward? That's why you often find those "evil corporations" - most of which are small, 3-10 person affairs. Lots of people pool their money, so their individual risk is low (a few thousand to a few tens of thousands), and then they all share the reward when they succeed. Lots of risk corporately, and lots of reward corporately - but individually, small risk and smaller reward.
For every Donald Trump there are literally tens of thousands of me. Small guys, running a business by themselves or with a partner, and putting their assets on the line. And generally getting ahead and succeeding. But from the President on down, there's a growing chorus of "you didn't earn that", and a stronger and stronger drumbeat to take the rewards of OUR risk, and of OUR labor.
Big risk should equal big reward. Of course, so many are pushing the idea that when you risk big, and you get that big reward, well "you didn't earn that". You need to share your rewards with others who DIDN'T risk... THAT is perverse, and seriously wrong. I'm willing to risk what I have for the reward that I can earn - how about letting me keep what I earned as a result of my hard work and my risk?
My revolvers are safety free, and there is no safety on the semi-autos I own as well. NO safety is as effective as an engaged brain. Treat every firearm as loaded, keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire, and maintain proper muzzle control.
Parasitic capitalist. I resemble that remark. Of course, I'm also the one who risked everything I had to build my business, keep most of my assets involved in building my business, and I'm the one that signs the paychecks of all my employees. Rather than a parasite, I view capitalists like myself as the nursery for the economy...
Tax breaks are legal, are they not? Revenues to the State are up over 60% since 1999, quite a bit more than inflation plus population growth. Spending is way out of line. That's the problem. It's not a revenue problem, and it's not a number-of-consumers problem (demand - inflation plus population growth). It's a spending/Government pork ladle problem.
Yes, only the assets and time they've invested in the LLC are subject to loss. That's why it's limited - you risk what you're putting into it, and everything it's made as well. Your other personal assets are not subject to loss... But there's still a lot on the line.
The problem, of course, is that people confuse "ample provision" with "everything the school system asks". What is ample provision? Is $10,000 per student ample provision? Many private schools - who do not get all the benefits of State-ownership - educate students with costs below that level...
I see a lot of ranting, but really no facts. IRS tax filing records aren't lies - the top earners pay a LOT higher rate than the middle class. Assume the top earners pay zero FICA/SSI, and someone in the middle pays full amount - that's only a 7.62% change, the top earners still pay more on average. Facts are difficult things to overcome - show your work, please!
Not if you were earning your income from an LLC or self-owned corporation, like you were talking about. Now, when you're employed by others, your company pays half on your behalf, but make no mistake they factor that in to your entire compensation package. It's coming out of the benefits you get (just like when they pay a portion of your insurance costs).
This year, the Federal Government will receive $9,300 per man, woman, and child in the US. That's about $37,000 per family of four. What you're saying is that Federal spending of $3000 per month per family is not sufficient?
I make $100,000 and pay less than 10% in federal income tax, and less than 20% in total tax (all local state and national taxes combined).
You do pay 15.24% right off the top, for SSI/FICA. So unless you're paying less than 4.76% income tax, and have zero local/state income tax, then you are paying more than 20% in income taxes.
In reality, he'd set up a property management LLC, make $250k gross, $50-100k expenses, and pay himself $150-$200k in dividends (not salary, different tax rates and no medicare/SS)
Go ahead and try that, and enjoy the reaming by the IRS. Income from an LLC is passed through to the owners and is considered regular income - NOT dividends. Now, if you had a C corp instead of an LLC, you could receive some of your income as dividends; however, if more than 20% of your total cash receipts from the C corp are in dividends and not salary get ready for a reaming by the IRS - they consider that tax evasion and will come down on you. You cannot shift the majority - or even a large minority - of your compensation as you suggest.
Not to mention that a C corp pays corporate income tax before any dividends are distributed, so you do get your nice double-taxation as well...
Yeah, that's pretty fucking rich. A little over 9 times the poverty level, and about 4 times the GDP per capita.
So a family of 4, earning $200K (as the GP posted), is pretty fucking rich because they earn 4 times the GDP per capita? Hmmm... Four people, four times the GDP per capita, I would figure that is kind of middle class...
I think you forget the $600 billion in tax increases passed in January of this year. And those taxes are heavily weighted to the upper end of the income scale. The Democrats got their tax increase, but they wanted even more - and don't want to talk about cuts at all...
Wait - what? I guess the $600 billion tax increase approved by the GOP and Democrats in January doesn't count as a compromise on tax increases? The President and the Democrats got their tax increase in January - now how about matching levels of cuts?
Slashdot Mirror
So who determined how much oil was there to begin with, so that we know we've hit the 50% mark? Without KNOWING how much oil there was to begin with, you cannot say we've used 50%. It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically.
Except those conclusions assume we knew how much oil there was. What if the first 50% was really the first 5%?
Except, of course, the people whose money is confiscated (via ever-increasing taxation) and used to research things like the sexual mating habits of moose, or fund a new crucifix-in-urine exhibit. They have no choice to decide if their assets return anything of value; it's just a Government-enforced loss of assets. But hey, it's just Someone Else's Money so it doesn't matter, right?
Cool. I guess the company you work for has zero investors, no owners, and no loans or lines of credit or payment terms with any entity. So how is your meth lab doing?
In this day and age, you simply cannot just "start a company" and do it without a permit. The Government wants its cut of taxes, wants to know you're paying your taxes and fees and permits, covering your employees, etc. An LLC is about as free-market as you're going to find - and it also protects your personal assets from any action.
Take a look at an S Corp and C Corp. Or even an LLC. What I'm describing covers ALL of those. Your liability is limited to the assets you personally put into the corporation. It does not extend beyond what was put into the company. Put in a little, risk a little. But chances are that restricting assets and capital at an early stage will also restrict the opportunities for growth. It's about as free-market as you can get.
??? Investors sit on their asses? Guess what - if they didn't put up the money to fund your company, you wouldn't have a company - or it would be a lot smaller. Investors risk their capital so you don't have to. That's the concept of investors - others fund your venture for you, so you put in the labor (risking your time), they put in their assets (risking their money), and if it succeeds you both are rewarded monetarily.
So you'd like to indemnify risk for people? Why - so you can share the reward? That's why you often find those "evil corporations" - most of which are small, 3-10 person affairs. Lots of people pool their money, so their individual risk is low (a few thousand to a few tens of thousands), and then they all share the reward when they succeed. Lots of risk corporately, and lots of reward corporately - but individually, small risk and smaller reward.
For every Donald Trump there are literally tens of thousands of me. Small guys, running a business by themselves or with a partner, and putting their assets on the line. And generally getting ahead and succeeding. But from the President on down, there's a growing chorus of "you didn't earn that", and a stronger and stronger drumbeat to take the rewards of OUR risk, and of OUR labor.
Big risk should equal big reward. Of course, so many are pushing the idea that when you risk big, and you get that big reward, well "you didn't earn that". You need to share your rewards with others who DIDN'T risk... THAT is perverse, and seriously wrong. I'm willing to risk what I have for the reward that I can earn - how about letting me keep what I earned as a result of my hard work and my risk?
My revolvers are safety free, and there is no safety on the semi-autos I own as well. NO safety is as effective as an engaged brain. Treat every firearm as loaded, keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire, and maintain proper muzzle control.
Parasitic capitalist. I resemble that remark. Of course, I'm also the one who risked everything I had to build my business, keep most of my assets involved in building my business, and I'm the one that signs the paychecks of all my employees. Rather than a parasite, I view capitalists like myself as the nursery for the economy...
Sadly, attempting to be the next rap/R&B star, great athlete, or lawyer takes precedence in most US youths' minds...
Tax breaks are legal, are they not? Revenues to the State are up over 60% since 1999, quite a bit more than inflation plus population growth. Spending is way out of line. That's the problem. It's not a revenue problem, and it's not a number-of-consumers problem (demand - inflation plus population growth). It's a spending/Government pork ladle problem.
Yes, only the assets and time they've invested in the LLC are subject to loss. That's why it's limited - you risk what you're putting into it, and everything it's made as well. Your other personal assets are not subject to loss... But there's still a lot on the line.
The problem, of course, is that people confuse "ample provision" with "everything the school system asks". What is ample provision? Is $10,000 per student ample provision? Many private schools - who do not get all the benefits of State-ownership - educate students with costs below that level...
I see a lot of ranting, but really no facts. IRS tax filing records aren't lies - the top earners pay a LOT higher rate than the middle class. Assume the top earners pay zero FICA/SSI, and someone in the middle pays full amount - that's only a 7.62% change, the top earners still pay more on average. Facts are difficult things to overcome - show your work, please!
Not if you were earning your income from an LLC or self-owned corporation, like you were talking about. Now, when you're employed by others, your company pays half on your behalf, but make no mistake they factor that in to your entire compensation package. It's coming out of the benefits you get (just like when they pay a portion of your insurance costs).
Come to California - we're at 13%! Woo hoo!
This year, the Federal Government will receive $9,300 per man, woman, and child in the US. That's about $37,000 per family of four. What you're saying is that Federal spending of $3000 per month per family is not sufficient?
I make $100,000 and pay less than 10% in federal income tax, and less than 20% in total tax (all local state and national taxes combined).
You do pay 15.24% right off the top, for SSI/FICA. So unless you're paying less than 4.76% income tax, and have zero local/state income tax, then you are paying more than 20% in income taxes.
In reality, he'd set up a property management LLC, make $250k gross, $50-100k expenses, and pay himself $150-$200k in dividends (not salary, different tax rates and no medicare/SS)
Go ahead and try that, and enjoy the reaming by the IRS. Income from an LLC is passed through to the owners and is considered regular income - NOT dividends. Now, if you had a C corp instead of an LLC, you could receive some of your income as dividends; however, if more than 20% of your total cash receipts from the C corp are in dividends and not salary get ready for a reaming by the IRS - they consider that tax evasion and will come down on you. You cannot shift the majority - or even a large minority - of your compensation as you suggest.
Not to mention that a C corp pays corporate income tax before any dividends are distributed, so you do get your nice double-taxation as well...
What tax rate should the rich pay, relative to the middle class? You might find it worthwhile to look at the actual income tax rates paid by various income groups and see that the higher income groups do, in fact, pay more in income taxes.
Yeah, that's pretty fucking rich. A little over 9 times the poverty level, and about 4 times the GDP per capita.
So a family of 4, earning $200K (as the GP posted), is pretty fucking rich because they earn 4 times the GDP per capita? Hmmm... Four people, four times the GDP per capita, I would figure that is kind of middle class...
I think you forget the $600 billion in tax increases passed in January of this year. And those taxes are heavily weighted to the upper end of the income scale. The Democrats got their tax increase, but they wanted even more - and don't want to talk about cuts at all...
Wait - what? I guess the $600 billion tax increase approved by the GOP and Democrats in January doesn't count as a compromise on tax increases? The President and the Democrats got their tax increase in January - now how about matching levels of cuts?