It's time!

[ikol]

Now I'm no genius, but what happens when all these people who have their retirement $$ in mutual funds start selling? Won't that affect the price of the funds, and therefore affect the value of everyone else's retirement? If every American's nest egg is invested in the stock market, it's gonna be hard to keep them growing at some point, seems to me.

 

I don't think that would be a problem. Everyone wouldn't be selling them at the same time, and there would also be employees contributing to funds while retirees were cashing them in. Also, you wouldn't cash the whole fund in at once but rather take out small amounts as needed.

[Good Old Neon]

The information you're privy to is a commentator's blog entry? I'm not sure that Andrew Sullivan, Billie Joe Armstrong or Keith Olbermann, however sagacious they may be, could make these charges stick.

 

 

If you are truly interested in educating yourself with regards to our current Administrations misuse of power and the many ways in which they have run afoul of the Geneva conventions, international law, and our own Military

[John Smith]

And employers hate paying it and do what they can to structure what they can to avoid paying it. They view it as another tax that they pay, not comp otherwise earned by the employee. If the employer didn't have to match, the employer would keep it. I'm with John Smith.

 

Small business owners also hate paying the employees portion as well as the employees federal and state withholding. I've done several cases where the taxpayer owed a boatload of cash and it is because they did not pay in the withholdings. To a person they all insisted that it was their money and had no conception of the fact that the money they owed was the withhodlings from their employees, that they had been really paying their people 10 dollars an hour and withholding the other five until it was due to be paid. The only thing they can do to avoid paying FICA is to pay their employees less. Or if they form an S corp or partnership and pay out the earnings as distributions. Even then the IRS has a problem with a company erning $200,000 profit and no wages being paid to the owner, they will force market rate wages on the owner at times.

 

Now I'm no genius, but what happens when all these people who have their retirement $$ in mutual funds start selling? Won't that affect the price of the funds, and therefore affect the value of everyone else's retirement? If every American's nest egg is invested in the stock market, it's gonna be hard to keep them growing at some point, seems to me.

 

I think the problems here come in several ways when the market crashes right before you retire or you were into stocks like Enron as an ESOP option or stuff like that. There are other pitfalls for instance my brother in law who wants his private account and no social security, messes around with his 401-k constantly he buys and sells and trades continually and little comes of it. His account is worth very little more than his actual contributions. Very few people have the ability to monitor these things the way pro's do. But a huge part of my scepticism revolves around looking at who Bush's major donors were in 2000 accounting firms investment house setc... people who would benfit hugely from privatizing. Which would be good for a few people but overall a huge mistake for our society. Unless of course you think setting people adrift when things go bad is good.

 

But to get to the original question prices would only be affected if huge amounts were sold off over short period of time.

[caliber66]

Well, I have money in mutual funds and stocks, but the whole deal seems like a big pyramid scheme to me. I just don't understand how the stock market can keep growing indefinitely at a pace greater than inflation. And as someone with decades until retirement and no hope of ever seeing a cent from Social Security, I'm a little concerned about it. Not terrified, just concerned.

[ShuckOwens]

If you are truly interested in educating yourself with regards to our current Administrations misuse of power and the many ways in which they have run afoul of the Geneva conventions, international law, and our own Military

[Good Old Neon]

I chime in when I see "war criminal" or "blood for oil" tossed in to discussions. Instead of citing specific charges of war crimes, or specific evidence of massive oil profits from Iraq, the slogans are always allowed to stand on their own.

 

What I'm really interested in "reporting" to you is that I have zero interest in engaging you in page after page of tit-for-tat over issues we will never agree upon. Page after page of me countering your insinuations that I am "uneducated" and "uninformed" because I do not subscribe to the thoeries of your favorite big thinkers. You putting up links making the case for "war criminal Bush" by Ivy Leaguers. Me following up with another academic's case for "Bush making tough decisions that have paid off." Krauthammer for Vanden Heuvel. Perle for Albright. Rush for Rhodes, Miller for Maher. Popular Mechanics for truthers.

 

There's my choice. Good day, Dirt.

 

-Shuck

uninformed wise ass

 

Fair enough, and I respect that, but I am not attempting to engage you in a tit-for-tat over ideas, but real documented cases and situations in which international laws were broken, Geneva conventions ignored. It matters not what you or I think, what matters is what actually happened - and there are many documented cases of torture carried out at the behest of this Administration, Abu Ghraib for example.

 

Whether Bush made tough choices that paid off is, for the most part, subjective. What is not open to subjective debate, is the fact that torture did occur.

 

With that said, the essay I linked sites actual Geneva Conventions and passages from own Military

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

The elfman goes to bat for Barack again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_...TwG8H5h_Cus0NUE

[mountain bed]

The elfman goes to bat for Barack again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_...TwG8H5h_Cus0NUE

God bless Dennis. I really like that guy.

 

In other news, I saw John Kerry give a fantastic speech introducing Obama in Charleston SC today. Damn, if he could have only sounded like this 4 years ago...it was stirring stuff. And then Obama comes out - U2 music blaring, screaming womens, etc. This guy really IS a rock star. Of course, I've heard this speech a number of times now - but no matter. It does get to you.

[Tweedling]

U2!?...........U2!!? He just lost my vote.

[ikol]

Well, I have money in mutual funds and stocks, but the whole deal seems like a big pyramid scheme to me. I just don't understand how the stock market can keep growing indefinitely at a pace greater than inflation. And as someone with decades until retirement and no hope of ever seeing a cent from Social Security, I'm a little concerned about it. Not terrified, just concerned.

 

It's not a pyramid scheme, because you're making money off of economic growth. The reason mutual funds are pretty safe is that they spread out the risk over many different investments. Even if some of those investments tank, there's an overall gain. As long as the economy is doing well, they will continue to grow. They might suffer some when the economy sucks, but when you're talking about several decades (most of which have economic growth), you are still going to make money. If you want a pyramid scheme, Social Security is the way to go.

[John Smith]

I chime in when I see "war criminal" or "blood for oil" tossed in to discussions. Instead of citing specific charges of war crimes, or specific evidence of massive oil profits from Iraq, the slogans are always allowed to stand on their own.

 

What I'm really interested in "reporting" to you is that I have zero interest in engaging you in page after page of tit-for-tat over issues we will never agree upon. Page after page of me countering your insinuations that I am "uneducated" and "uninformed" because I do not subscribe to the thoeries of your favorite big thinkers. You putting up links making the case for "war criminal Bush" by Ivy Leaguers. Me following up with another academic's case for "Bush making tough decisions that have paid off." Krauthammer for Vanden Heuvel. Perle for Albright. Rush for Rhodes, Miller for Maher. Popular Mechanics for truthers.

 

There's my choice. Good day, Dirt.

 

-Shuck

uninformed wise ass

 

Would it be fair to say that you might never accept any charges against the president regardless of the proof? I know many people who still think Nixon did no wrong, and that when Reagan sold arms to the contra's and traded with Iran that it is OK in spite of what the actual laws were.

[IRememberDBoon]

I chime in when I see "war criminal" or "blood for oil" tossed in to discussions. Instead of citing specific charges of war crimes, or specific evidence of massive oil profits from Iraq, the slogans are always allowed to stand on their own.

 

What I'm really interested in "reporting" to you is that I have zero interest in engaging you in page after page of tit-for-tat over issues we will never agree upon. Page after page of me countering your insinuations that I am "uneducated" and "uninformed" because I do not subscribe to the thoeries of your favorite big thinkers. You putting up links making the case for "war criminal Bush" by Ivy Leaguers. Me following up with another academic's case for "Bush making tough decisions that have paid off." Krauthammer for Vanden Heuvel. Perle for Albright. Rush for Rhodes, Miller for Maher. Popular Mechanics for truthers.

 

There's my choice. Good day, Dirt.

 

-Shuck

uninformed wise ass

 

 

Krauthammer, Perle, Rush and Dennis Miller are all insane morons. Its not even a debate.

[bobbob1313]

Krauthammer, Perle, Rush and Dennis Miller are all insane morons. Its not even a debate.

 

[mountain bed]

Would it be fair to say that you might never accept any charges against the president regardless of the proof? I know many people who still think Nixon did no wrong, and that when Reagan sold arms to the contra's and traded with Iran that it is OK in spite of what the actual laws were.

"If the President does it, how can it be illegal?" Didn't Nixon say that?

[Guest Jules]

Huh?

Yeah, I employ many immigrants (some illegal, I'm sure) and pay for a high percentage of their health insurance (I truly wish we could pay for all of it; it's just not feasible). You would be surprised at how many decline it, and probably still would even if we paid for everything.

 

I have seen time and time again where the employers rates have dropped and they have never in my experience paid those savings to employees as additional wages. Ditto for when they save on Employee health insurance (Sometimes premiums do go down as companies add more employees to the rolls)..... So I really have no faith in any company to pay out any savings on employee benfits be those benefits the employer match for FICA or insurance savings. Why would a business owner cut his own profits? Ceretainly a few might be somewhat altruistic, but generally they will keep it for themselves.

God forbid they try to make a fucking profit. It's not a charity, afterall. However, your pessimistic view of small business owners, albeit from personal experience, is disappointing. It's harder and harder to compete (in my case as a manufacturing company) while trying to keep labor in the US, not to mention in the Chicago area. We get absolutely screwed on insurance premium increases every year, have to pay estimated taxes before we even collect the money from our customers, and on and on. It's a wonder any small business survives very long. I now know how banks stay in business. In my case, we try our best to provide a clean, safe working environment while also offering a comprehensive benefits package. It's not easy. We spend a lot of time looking for the best insurance plans out there (afterall, the owners use the same plan), and if we save some money somehow, you better believe we keep some of it. However, most goes to the employees in the form of a lower deduction. In the end, though, yes, profits are the main objective. If this wasn't the case, we would have gone out of business a long time ago and there would be 200 less jobs in the area.

[John Smith]

"If the President does it, how can it be illegal?" Didn't Nixon say that?

 

And the Current president has said on numerous occasions "If we do it it's legal"

 

God forbid they try to make a fucking profit. It's not a charity, afterall. However, your pessimistic view of small business owners, albeit from personal experience, is disappointing. It's harder and harder to compete (in my case as a manufacturing company) while trying to keep labor in the US, not to mention in the Chicago area. We get absolutely screwed on insurance premium increases every year, have to pay estimated taxes before we even collect the money from our customers, and on and on. It's a wonder any small business survives very long. I now know how banks stay in business. In my case, we try our best to provide a clean, safe working environment while also offering a comprehensive benefits package. It's not easy. We spend a lot of time looking for the best insurance plans out there (afterall, the owners use the same plan), and if we save some money somehow, you better believe we keep some of it. However, most goes to the employees in the form of a lower deduction. In the end, though, yes, profits are the main objective. If this wasn't the case, we would have gone out of business a long time ago and there would be 200 less jobs in the area.

 

My What an angry response. I think you need to re-read the whole thread for this particular topic. Someone implied the small business owners would pass the tax savings along. I simply stated that from experience I did not believe that to be true. I did not pass any judgments on anyone for doing this. I was simply noting that anywhere that savings could be made it would be retained by the owner(s). I perhaps did not explicitly say so but they would retain those savings for profit. Where on earth did I make any pessimistic judgments. Perhaps it was in noting that the small business owners generally will not pass those savings along to their employees? As a small business owner if you did not have to pay the employers share of FICA would you increase your employees wages proportionally? If you would, then you are in the minority. I was simply relating my experience as a tax person on where small business owners get in trouble with the IRS. Not all do, the Firm I worked at had some 500 small business clients and two or three over a five year period got into IRS troubles, but they got into those troubles for the exact reason I stated, they did not want to pay out their federal payroll taxes, neither the employees portion or the employers match. In each of those cases they viewed the money (all of it, Withholding, FICA both employer and emmployee portion) as their, not the employees. In case you could not tell I used to depend on small business for a living and worked for a small business. No pessimism here.

 

I do not understand the sentence...However, most goes to the employees in the form of a lower deduction. Is that regarding the insurance premiums? Or is it in regards to tax savings?

 

But beyond that what estimates do you have to pay before you collect? If you are talking about income taxes and are on the accrual basis then of course you calculate and pay your taxes based on when you have the right to receive the income. Usually that means when you make the sale, even if you make the sale on credit. Overall if the business is steady then this should only be a problem at the very beginning of the business and during slow times. At the beginning because sales would be ahead of receipts. After that everything should be cycling on a regular basis with cash coming for last period's credit sales and being able to cover expenses on this quarters credit sales etc... If this is a sales tax issue I don't know how that works, but I would imagine that you would have the same situation going.

[Guest Jules]

My What an angry response. I think you need to re-read the whole thread for this particular topic. Someone implied the small business owners would pass the tax savings along. I simply stated that from experience I did not believe that to be true. I did not pass any judgments on anyone for doing this. I was simply noting that anywhere that savings could be made it would be retained by the owner(s). I perhaps did not explicitly say so but they would retain those savings for profit. Where on earth did I make any pessimistic judgments. Perhaps it was in noting that the small business owners generally will not pass those savings along to their employees? As a small business owner if you did not have to pay the employers share of FICA would you increase your employees wages proportionally? If you would, then you are in the minority. I was simply relating my experience as a tax person on where small business owners get in trouble with the IRS. Not all do, the Firm I worked at had some 500 small business clients and two or three over a five year period got into IRS troubles, but they got into those troubles for the exact reason I stated, they did not want to pay out their federal payroll taxes, neither the employees portion or the employers match. In each of those cases they viewed the money (all of it, Withholding, FICA both employer and emmployee portion) as their, not the employees. In case you could not tell I used to depend on small business for a living and worked for a small business. No pessimism here.

 

I do not understand the sentence...However, most goes to the employees in the form of a lower deduction. Is that regarding the insurance premiums? Or is it in regards to tax savings?

 

But beyond that what estimates do you have to pay before you collect? If you are talking about income taxes and are on the accrual basis then of course you calculate and pay your taxes based on when you have the right to receive the income. Usually that means when you make the sale, even if you make the sale on credit. Overall if the business is steady then this should only be a problem at the very beginning of the business and during slow times. At the beginning because sales would be ahead of receipts. After that everything should be cycling on a regular basis with cash coming for last period's credit sales and being able to cover expenses on this quarters credit sales etc...

I'm a little sensitive. It's January. Thanks for the clarification. The "lower deduction" was in regards to the insurance premiums. When we can obtain reduced premiums (rare) we pass most along by reducing the employees pre-tax deduction for insurance. I wish even more took advanage of it, so we could get our participaton levels up.

 

Regarding the estimated taxes, 99% of our sales are on credit. Hence, for example, we pay 1st Quarter estimated taxes in April. Not too bad, I guess, but since we are just collecting February and some of March billings at that point, I could see why some companies have to borrow money just to make this payment. (We get paid on average in 45 days; most OEMs are now pushing for 60-90 days terms). 2nd quarter is due in June. The 2nd quarter isn't even over yet, and we won't collect all that money until August. Same goes for 3rd quarter (September) payment. Thankfully, having been in business for 50 years, we are not in a cash-strapped situation, so we can handle this. I understand your take on the business cycle, but peaks and valleys in sales can cause issues as well. It's just the principal of the timing that gets me. If I am looking at this the wrong way, I am open to other interpretations.

 

I guess we're slightly off topic, though, huh?

[Guest Golyadkin]

God bless Dennis. I really like that guy.

 

In other news, I saw John Kerry give a fantastic speech introducing Obama in Charleston SC today. Damn, if he could have only sounded like this 4 years ago...it was stirring stuff. And then Obama comes out - U2 music blaring, screaming womens, etc. This guy really IS a rock star. Of course, I've heard this speech a number of times now - but no matter. It does get to you.

 

 

Kerry is poll picking. If it was Edwards that was doing better he would be endorsing his old VP running mate.

 

Which by the way, Kerry just slapped Edwards in the face.

 

Great character that Kerry guy.....

[bjorn_skurj]

Good thing nobody really cares about endorsements.

[Tweedling]

I wonder if southern citizens once took the stand, "Our cotton is going to be so expensive if we can't keep these slaves!" or "Who do those Yankees think will pick the cotton?!"

[bjorn_skurj]

I wonder if southern citizens once took the stand, "Our cotton is going to be so expensive if we can't keep these slaves!" or "Who do those Yankees think will pick the cotton?!"

Probably. I would imagine every argument that could be trotted out was trotted out back then.

[Guest Golyadkin]

Good thing nobody really cares about endorsements.

 

Ask Edwards that...

 

Or Obama with Opra....

 

Endorsements are huge...

 

Unions endorsement is huge....

 

None however are as huge as an endorsement from Doug

[MrRain422]

I don't know think Kerry's endorsement particularly helps Obama in the polls, but it doesn't hurt him either. The huge mailing list of people that donated money to Kerry's campaign in '04 that he may now give to Obama could be very helpful though.

[Mr. Kinsley]

The Kerry endorsement (as fun as it is to call it "the endorsement of death") will be forgotten by next week and a total non-issue. Union endorsements ARE a big deal because then you have a dedicated base of votes that will (mostly) come your way, as well as a supply of volunteers to help you out with campaign issues like phone banks, canvassing, etc.

[lamradio]

I wonder how many posts will be in this thread by the time the new president is elected. If it stays open, it'll be in the thousands..