Republican congressman bemoans making $600k per year

[Liar]

Wait a minute. I thought the line from the right was that businesses don't pay taxes, they pass it all on in the form of price increases.

Now the story I'm hearing is that this is not the case? Which is it?

To be fair, everything affects everythng.

Higher taxes on the business means the business either have to cut costs, raise revenue or lower profit. If profit margins are slim, two options remain. And if you raise the prace for the product too much, the demand for the product will drop. You can only pass on a higher production cost, which includes taxes, to a certain point. Laffer curves and all that jazz.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with the income tax debate though, which should be irrelevant to any incorporated business that is not run by incompetent fools. Has the thread moved on from that?

 

[off2bed]

7 pages, 151 posts, and Merc still hasn't learned how business in America works?

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Actually, I am this Congressman Fleming is gradually impressing me. He is a doctor, owns a chain of Subway and UPS stores, and is a congressman. With a combination like that, he can deliver your drugs and food, then do a physical to ensure you do not OD or die from food poisoning. And it would not take an act of congress to do have him do all that.

 

[busybody..]

CEO: The government fined me for hiring too many people

September 20, 2011 7:33 P.M.

By Andrew C. McCarthy






Peter Schiff, president and CEO of EuroPacific Capital, testified last week before a House subcommittee investigating the Obama stimulus and business regulation. The transcript of his submitted testimony is here (the Fox Nation site, which also has a video of his appearance before the committee, credits Forbes for the original report). Every word of the testimony is worth reading, but especially remarkable is this excerpt:

In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years. I was even fined fifteen thousand dollar expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.

He’s in finance. I guess he should have tried solar panels.

 

[off2bed]

CEO: The government fined me for hiring too many people

September 20, 2011 7:33 P.M.

By Andrew C. McCarthy






Peter Schiff, president and CEO of EuroPacific Capital, testified last week before a House subcommittee investigating the Obama stimulus and business regulation. The transcript of his submitted testimony is here (the Fox Nation site, which also has a video of his appearance before the committee, credits Forbes for the original report). Every word of the testimony is worth reading, but especially remarkable is this excerpt:

In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years. I was even fined fifteen thousand dollar expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.

He’s in finance. I guess he should have tried solar panels.

Naw, he should have tried union workers. Then the Dumz would make him hire more.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Naw, he should have tried union workers. Then the Dumz would make him hire more.

what you need is a $16 dollar muffin from the Justice Dept. corruption runs amuke for these governemnt fucktards.


coffee $8

and who on earth wants to give those fuckers more tax money?

 

[busybody..]

HEY NIGGER

I STARTED A THREAD FOR YOU

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=38692088&posted=1#post38692088

She paid for it?

RIGHT?

DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? NIGGER?

 

[busybody..]

HEY NIGGER

I STARTED A THREAD FOR YOU

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=38692088&posted=1#post38692088

She paid for it?

RIGHT?

DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? NIGGER?

Its OK, NIGGER

I'll wait

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Keep on waiting on my fucking cock, you racist piece of shit

http://www.patuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JesusMiddleFinger.jpg

 

[busybody..]

Keep on waiting on my fucking cock, you racist piece of shit

http://www.patuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JesusMiddleFinger.jpg

in other words

You are OK with COLOREDCUNT wearing $45K BLING?

I know

Its a NIGGER thing

We NORMAL people dont understand

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Thanks for getting back on my fucking cock, you racist piece of shit

http://www.patuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JesusMiddleFinger.jpg

 

[busybody..]

coloredcunt Shows The Bling

Its A Nigger Thing

Is Your Bp Up?

Niggers Have High Bp?

Dont Blow A Gasket!:d

 

[IrezumiKiss]

How does my cock taste, you racist piece of shit?

http://www.patuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JesusMiddleFinger.jpg

 

[trysail]

...2) If you want to talk about corporate income, the taxes are assessed on profits not gross receipts. His corporation could eliminate all taxes by reinvesting all the "left over" money back into the business...

I don't think so. If you are talking about capital expenditures, they'll have to be capitalized as assets, then depreciated over their depreciable life.

 

[rustywilliams]

Anyone else see this? It's absolutely jaw-dropping. (video on the page)

"The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million," Fleming explained. "So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment."

Fleming owns a string of Subway sandwich shops and UPS store franchises that earned a gross income of about $6.3 million last year, according to a review of the congressman's finances in The Wall Street Journal.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-john-fleming-field-criticism-over-600k-income-153305241.html

What bothers me most is the misinformation this congressman is spouting.
He said that he had $400,000 left over to invest in his business and create more jobs, but increased tax rates would reduce the amount he had to invest.

If he invests in his business then that is a pre-tax expense, so therefore he would avoid taxes on it.
Actually, you could argue that higher taxes create a bigger incentive to invest in business, instead of simply stuffing it away in a bank account.

 

[trysail]

What bothers me most is the misinformation this congressman is spouting.
He said that he had $400,000 left over to invest in his business and create more jobs, but increased tax rates would reduce the amount he had to invest.

If he invests in his business then that is a pre-tax expense, so therefore he would avoid taxes on it.
Actually, you could argue that higher taxes create a bigger incentive to invest in business, instead of simply stuffing it away in a bank account.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


If the reinvestment is in the form of tangible assets— which is what people usually mean when they use the word "reinvestment" rather than the more accurate "capital expenditures," they are not deductible but most be capitalized and depreciated as such.

 

[rustywilliams]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


If the reinvestment is in the form of tangible assets— which is what people usually mean when they use the word "reinvestment" rather than the more accurate "capital expenditures," they are not deductible but most be capitalized and depreciated as such.

"Wrong, wrong, wrong"?

Well, let me respond in a more gracious and factual manner than you.

Yes, you would generally take your tax deductions in the form of depreciation, but these days a large percentage can be written off in the first year.
The tax code varies from year to year, of course, but last year I had the option of writing off 100% of new equipment purchases, so next time, please check your facts before contradicting me.

 

[mercury14]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


If the reinvestment is in the form of tangible assets— which is what people usually mean when they use the word "reinvestment" rather than the more accurate "capital expenditures," they are not deductible but most be capitalized and depreciated as such.

Not all reinvestment is in the form of tangible assets. In fact it's quite possible that close to 0% of his reinvestment in a given year is tangible assets.

 

[trysail]

Not all reinvestment is in the form of tangible assets. In fact it's quite possible that close to 0% of his reinvestment in a given year is tangible assets.

Not that you have a clue one way or another. The word "reinvestment" is generally understood to mean fixed assets. The only other reinvestment would be for working capital.


It's moot in any event: none of it is deductible in the year in which it is invested.

 

[rustywilliams]

Not that you have a clue one way or another. The word "reinvestment" is generally understood to mean fixed assets. The only other reinvestment would be for working capital.


It's moot in any event: none of it is deductible in the year in which it is invested.

You obviously don't run a business.
At the very least SOME of it can effectively be written off the first year.
Most business owners depreciate expenses over a number of years, so that the amount written off corresponds to the repayments made on loans.
For several years you were allowed to write off initial expenses up to $17,000 if I remember correctly, but recently that has been increased, so that last year I had the option of writing off almost the entire cost of new equipment.

 

[mercury14]

Not that you have a clue one way or another. The word "reinvestment" is generally understood to mean fixed assets. The only other reinvestment would be for working capital.


It's moot in any event: none of it is deductible in the year in which it is invested.

What does that have to do with this guy's personal income? Deductible or not, is it not handled through corporate taxes and not personal income tax?

 

[trysail]

You obviously don't run a business.
At the very least SOME of it can effectively be written off the first year.
Most business owners depreciate expenses over a number of years, so that the amount written off corresponds to the repayments made on loans.
For several years you were allowed to write off initial expenses up to $17,000 if I remember correctly, but recently that has been increased, so that last year I had the option of writing off almost the entire cost of new equipment.

I understand that; I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible for the simpletons ( and you are rapidly approaching that category with nitpicking and statements such as: Most business owners depreciate expenses over a number of years, so that the amount written off corresponds to the repayments made on loans).

 

[trysail]

What does that have to do with this guy's personal income? Deductible or not, is it not handled through corporate taxes and not personal income tax?

I give up. I don't have the time or the patience to parse random arrangements of words.

 

[rustywilliams]

I understand that; I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible for the simpletons ( and you are rapidly approaching that category with nitpicking and statements such as: Most business owners depreciate expenses over a number of years, so that the amount written off corresponds to the repayments made on loans).

Look, there's no point in us getting into a silly pissing match about this.

My point is that if the "job creators" put their money back into their businesses, it generally means they won't be paying tax on it.

Therefore a higher tax rate might actually encourage such investment, rather than discourage it.

It's a simple point.

Of course, congressional Republicans use Newspeak dictionaries.
To them it ("job creating") means plonking your money into the stock market, or some such thing. Once in the stock market there is no reason to believe it will be used to fund job creation in this country at all.

 

[trysail]

...My point is that if the "job creators" put their money back into their businesses, it generally means they won't be paying tax on it.

Therefore a higher tax rate might actually encourage such investment, rather than discourage it.

It's a simple point.

Of course, congressional Republicans use Newspeak dictionaries.
To them it ("job creating") means plonking your money into the stock market, or some such thing. Once in the stock market there is no reason to believe it will be used to fund job creation in this country at all.

... and you're wrong because you're apparently mixing up cash flow with accounting ( of both the financial and tax variety ). In any event, you're not making any sense. Cash flow, from which capital expenditures are made, is after-tax dollars.