Who here receives government benefits

The 6% is a taking by the government pure and simple. The return is inadequate to support an elderly person. If that person would be able to save that in a tax-free, self directed way they'd be able to retire in comfort. Even now the elderly have to work to supplement the meager scraps the government deems to throw to them. At the same time, SSI robs the young of their full paycheck which they could be investing for themselves for the future.

 

Beware of economies of scale coming to work against you. A lot more work, a lot more money flowing and a lot more risk from it. Also, there are windows where you become big enough for the government to figure they can shake you down for money many different ways, but not big enough to fight them and win for the legal costs. The person I mentioned before was advise because of the government she should either make her business smaller or push it becoming huge (the direction it was headed) because the company(s) was in that terrible middle ground. Big enough for inspectors, regulators, auditors etc to be able to justify time there and with potentials of money to get, but not big enough to fight it all the way through the grotesquely unjust and unconstitutional "administrative law" gimmick government agencies you to basically deny your due process rights. In administrative law, the government is the accuser, the law enforcement, the prosecutor and the judge. Of course, if you have millions of dollars you'll never get back to fight them? Ultimately you'll get into the real court system, but before that they'll settle for about what your attorney fees would be - meaning you are only taking a risk fighting it further. Unless you have some big dogs (in government) to battle for you (ie government v government), because for ruining a good thing just for the sake of getting bigger. Bigger means bigger risks and potentially a harder fall.

Is there anything you do in your business that might bring in the feds? Chemicals? Environmental? OSHA? etc. Usually, a small local business can work with local and state government. The feds? That's another ballgame.

 

As a Vietnam Vet myself, I suffered all of those emotions too. I compensated (albeit weakly) by being a Vietnam Veteran Against the War. But a face full of tear gas at UNM made me realize the government (and more importantly, the population) wasn't listening. What did I achieve by advancing 200 meters and then scurrying away as far as possible with my hands over my eyes? Accepting a meager pension for my contribution to American imperialism in Vietnam is the ONLY revenge I get. And if I send it to Saigon or Hanoi for some humanitarian effort to care for those suffering the effects of wounds or Agent Orange, what more can I do? I went back in 1999 just to apologize to the wind. I saw a beggar woman cuddling a severely deformed child in her arms and I told her ''Xin Loi" but she had no idea what I was talking about.

I disagree with you there. How can a 19-year-old boy be responsible for all of that. And if you didn't follow orders you'd never get to savour those disgusting ham & eggs in a can .... or ever go home again.

Buck up, Trooper. Let's take responsibility for the decisions we actually had and point the finger of blame towards those who profited for the decisions that were forced upon us. Speak loudly, but carry no stick.

 

Follow the discussion trail and you will see that I was quoting another forum member. Re-quoting it as though they were my words won't get us anywhere ..... but into trouble.

 

The biggest tax falsehood is claiming the income tax and payroll deductions is the only taxes a person pays. People, including the poor, are constantly taxes in virtually anything they do. The price of anything bought is higher because of all the multiple taxes on the producer, wha the producer uses in materials and supplies, transporting the food, taxes on the store - the list is almost endless. Any food item purchased reflected in the price are probably 50+ taxes along the way. Cell phones are taxed. Electricity. Housing. All transportation.

 

You are confusing multiple issues, mainly the people who had to participate in a government system and earned the benefits, and people who abuse the government available benefits.

If a person spent a career in the military, then they have a contract with the government. They do the governments work, take the risks (about 1 in 4 Naval aviators will die doing their job, almost 1 in 3 for SEALS), and in exchange the government provides for their retirement and medical care. If a person is injured or killed on the job, then the government owes that person and the family lifetime benefits.

So military people might "live off of the government", but they earned it and that's the agreement entered into by all parties.

And they can also complain about the government when the government fails, particularly when the government fails to meet its agreed to obligations. The VA is the prime example of govt failure.

Social security is another example of earned benefits, or as another poster described it as "retrieving money stolen from you". You have no choice, you are forced to pay into the system, and many people who object to SS and resent being forced into the system will demand their "stolen" money be returned to them in so-called "benefit" checks.

I have no problem with people demanding their SS checks. And these people have every right to demand SS be reformed or eliminated.

And all of these people can criticize any aspect of the government.

What I object to is people who live off of the govt and use their position to influence the govt in order to increase their personal benefits. People such as politicians, government bureaucrats, "welfare queens", company owners who exist due to govt subsidy (Elon Musk comes to mind), employees of political "think tanks" and lobbying groups.

 

Trust me I know. Its sad that I have the potential to double my workforce but am leery of making that move because of the headaches it will likely cause.

And yeah. If I make this move I will definitly be on their radar.

Right now I am toying with the idea of having another company complete the processes that would otherwose push me into the large volume classification. It would certainly keep the gov eyes off me. But doing that has all sorts of associated costs as well. And I end up with less control over the quality.

For my own sanity, it would be better to just sell everything off and retire. I could live very comfortably. But we have built something great here and it has the potential to continue to grow exponentially over the next couple generations. Killing it now would be kind of like tossing your baby in the trash on the way home from the hospital.

 

LMFAO. I wish it was only 20%. Your average 50k a year American, by thr time everything is said and done ends up paying around 50% of their earnjngs in various taxes. And I am no average 50k a year American.

 

I doubt that most Americans of even average intelligence fail to save because they think the government will take care of them.

 

You never got a tax refund, huh? I really don't think that I believe you.

 

A refund is the change most people get back after the government charged them too much. Its money given back after it was stollen from them under the threat of violence.

Unless of course youre talking about the "poor" who recieve more back than they paid in.

 

Why do people think its the governments money? My father never paid his taxes monthly he would pay them at the end of the year. He said he could do a lot more with the money over a year than the government could why should I loan them money ? Heck according to the left if you are a true patriot you will refuse your rebate

 

Now they want to tax the air we breath

[video=youtube;y8OgkjcW0g4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OgkjcW0g4[/video]

 

That depends on what is meant by a benefit. Not all of us receive a direct payment but we all drive on roads and have used schools and currently use utilities. The question is are these things better off privatized than being under govt control. There is certainly an argument out there for separating school and state for example (link).

 

Getting rid of it won't be that tough considering the majorities. Replacing it with something competent instead of just yanking millions off of their insurance is going to be the hard part. They're going to need Democrat cooperation to implement something new.

 

Never mind what I was trying to say. your reply was worth it!

 

You cant just yank someone off a government program its unconstitutional. For instance they could not end SS today or welfare checks to those who already qualify. If they revoke Obamacare tomorrow they would still have to cover those people who are now on it. It seems Obama had no problem yanking millions off policies they liked and had for years

 

Actually in law there is nothing stopping the government from ending welfare, SS or Obamacare. What stops it is politics.

 

Yes there is. They can end it but they still have to pay out all those who signed up for or were getting those benefits.

 

Please point specifically to this law.

 

It was one of the reasons for our big crash. Debt increasing, houses used as a revolving ATM machine. I agree.
It was how the gov't wanted to expand the economy. As wages have been flat for decades. Since about NAFTA.

 

You aren't changing it, it isn't going away. Deal with it.
Save what a % of what you take home, not what you hoped you could have if there was no gov't at all.

- - - Updated - - -

I know all that. And no one thinks that's the only taxes paid. Especially D's. It's why there is a progressive tax system. So those barely getting enough to survive on don't pay the payroll taxes. Because a larger chunk of what they spend percentage wise is taxed at consumption.

- - - Updated - - -

The 20% is fed and state taxes. Not consumption taxes.

 

Still pay way more than 20%



But anyway. You dont have a problem with 50% of peoples earnings going to varioua taxes?

 

Like all big tax advocates, you expect to pay a lower percentage than most of us, and plan on getting way more out than you put in.

 

You're misusing the word unconstitutional. It would be political suicide for a repeal to happen without replacement which is the only reason republicans are talking about replacement. They don't really care about quality healthcare and would go back to the old system of "don't get sick, if you do, go bankrupt before dying" if they could get away with it. Ironically, a lot of poor people who received coverage from Obamacare vote republican, directly against their interests. Let's not pretend the right has developed compassion or empathy.