6 ms·

That guy sounds like a passive aggressive, condescending dick. He may have some nuggets buried in there, but they're difficult to find when he drops phrases li

by mrkurt 18y ago

That guy sounds like a passive aggressive, condescending dick. He may have some nuggets buried in there, but they're difficult to find when he drops phrases like "while you get here at 9, and mentally check in at about noon". I worked in an environment where the business owners subtly questioned the worth of all of their employees once and I'll never do it again. I hope that I'll treat people differently if I'm ever in a similar position.

fallentimes 18y ago
I agree, but man I'd be beyond pissed if the government was taking 50% of my money.
- modoc 18y ago
  One of my biggest shocks of running a profitable small company is how much of that profit vanishes into (Iraq, GM, Bank Bailouts, etc....). It seems that the large companies have enough accountants, divisions, and clever ways to avoid taxes that they pay a tiny percent, but small business don't really have much available and end up eating the full bill. I'm paying about 55% between federal and state taxes.
  - mrkurt 18y ago
    There's almost an unhealthy incentive to blow money rather than make any profit, isn't there? Before I folded my little company, I'd routinely buy shit that I really didn't need since I could justify it as a business expense. Oh well.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      I highly encourage people to expense things they'd have to pay for anyway (e.g. health club memberships, cell phones, parking passes, subway cards, etc). Just make sure you talk to your accountant first.
    - vaksel 18y ago
      the incentive is not for you to "blow" money...the incentive is there for you to invest back into your business, grow and expand.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        That money (cash reserves) is taxed as well - unless you spend it within the designated fiscal year or quarter.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    When people talk about taxing the rich, it usually translates in the real world to sacking it to the people/businesses who have just moved out of the middle class and are finally reaching a growth stage. The mature big businesses all have all sorts of location and tax options they can use. Truly rich people live where they want and pay what taxes they choose to pay. So whatever the motive, the result of these policies is that you end up sticking the biggest burden on the pieces of the economy that are just beginning to grow, provide value, and are most likely to produce even more jobs and value. Kind of a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-to-make-headache-go-away strategy.
  - delano 18y ago
    There's no secret to filing an efficient tax return. All it takes is one good accountant.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  If the government takes >50% of your money, you make enough that you'll never be pissed about anything. You're somewhere over the $300k mark.
swombat 18y ago
My thoughts exactly. This guy is a dick. If I were working for him and got this letter, I'd hand in my resignation. To the author: You're not the navel of the universe. I'm oh so sorry you've had to work hard for your shit. So has everyone else. In your darkest hour of disdain for the hapless employees you've hired to help expand your business, never forget: if it wasn't for all these people, you wouldn't be rich, because you wouldn't be able to hire all those people to make money from you.
brentb 18y ago
If this guy actually sent that note to his employees (and I don't doubt that he did) he is absolutely a passive aggressive, condescending dick... couldn't have put it better myself. He's also a whiner and an idiot who obviously doesn't trouble himself with facts or history. First of all, Dick (which is what I'll call the author, since I don't know his name) writes: If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. Within the context of the article, Dick isn't referring to any actual steamrolling of the constitution that has taken place at the hands of the Bush administration (as long as there are terrorists out there... and there are always terrorists out there... it's apparently un-American to defend the Constitution, civil liberties, etc.). No, in the article, Dick is referring to changes in the tax code that the Obama administration has proposed (though they may not act on them for a year or two). The funny thing is that Dick appears to believe that these tax hikes will be unprecedented. He believes they will streamroll the constitution and change its landscape forever. In fact, all Obama plans to do is return the top two tax rates to what they were in 2000 (and throughout most of the 90's). Taxes will still be lower than they were in 2000 because he plans to leave the other brackets (which are now at lower rates than they were in 2000) untouched. Even the wealthiest 1% of households (with an average income of $1.6 million per year) will pay less than they paid in '93-'00. So the idea that Obama's tax plan will streamroll the constitution and change its landscape forever is hogwash. His proposed taxes are lower than they were just 8 years ago and in any case, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about taxes. I've read the constitution; obviously this guy hasn't. Even stronger evidence of the ridiculousness of this claim can be found if we look at history. Let's look at the top marginal Federal tax rates seen in recent history: 50% (1982-86) 70% (1965-85) 77% (1964) 91-92% (1946-63) 94% (1944-45) Under Obama's plan, the highest marginal tax rate starts at an income of $357,700 (in 2008 dollars) and will only be 39.6%. And it's important to note that this is the marginal rate, not the average rate. Someone making $400,000 won't be paying 39.6% of her income to Uncle Sam, she'll be paying 31.6%, making the absurd assumption that she has no deductions. In reality, she'll almost certainly be paying less. Finally, I'd just like to point out that two people with perhaps the highest tax burdens in the United States (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) both support Obama and his tax hikes. In fact, Buffet has said it's ridiculous how little tax he is expected to pay. I tend to agree, especially considering our budget deficit (not to mention our national debt). I for one would be happy to pay higher taxes... if I'm doing well, a large part of that success is owed to the country that provided me with my education and the infrastructure and opportunities to make a success of myself. I'd like to see that education and infrastructure get even better. I'd like to see poor kids get preventative health care. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I agree with Biden: paying taxes is patriotic.

by mrkurt 18y ago

fallentimes 18y ago

I agree, but man I'd be beyond pissed if the government was taking 50% of my money.

modoc 18y ago
One of my biggest shocks of running a profitable small company is how much of that profit vanishes into (Iraq, GM, Bank Bailouts, etc....). It seems that the large companies have enough accountants, divisions, and clever ways to avoid taxes that they pay a tiny percent, but small business don't really have much available and end up eating the full bill. I'm paying about 55% between federal and state taxes.
- mrkurt 18y ago
  There's almost an unhealthy incentive to blow money rather than make any profit, isn't there? Before I folded my little company, I'd routinely buy shit that I really didn't need since I could justify it as a business expense. Oh well.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I highly encourage people to expense things they'd have to pay for anyway (e.g. health club memberships, cell phones, parking passes, subway cards, etc). Just make sure you talk to your accountant first.
  - vaksel 18y ago
    the incentive is not for you to "blow" money...the incentive is there for you to invest back into your business, grow and expand.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      That money (cash reserves) is taxed as well - unless you spend it within the designated fiscal year or quarter.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  When people talk about taxing the rich, it usually translates in the real world to sacking it to the people/businesses who have just moved out of the middle class and are finally reaching a growth stage. The mature big businesses all have all sorts of location and tax options they can use. Truly rich people live where they want and pay what taxes they choose to pay. So whatever the motive, the result of these policies is that you end up sticking the biggest burden on the pieces of the economy that are just beginning to grow, provide value, and are most likely to produce even more jobs and value. Kind of a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-to-make-headache-go-away strategy.
- delano 18y ago
  There's no secret to filing an efficient tax return. All it takes is one good accountant.
mattmaroon 18y ago
If the government takes >50% of your money, you make enough that you'll never be pissed about anything. You're somewhere over the $300k mark.

swombat 18y ago

My thoughts exactly. This guy is a dick. If I were working for him and got this letter, I'd hand in my resignation. To the author: You're not the navel of the universe. I'm oh so sorry you've had to work hard for your shit. So has everyone else. In your darkest hour of disdain for the hapless employees you've hired to help expand your business, never forget: if it wasn't for all these people, you wouldn't be rich, because you wouldn't be able to hire all those people to make money from you.

brentb 18y ago

If this guy actually sent that note to his employees (and I don't doubt that he did) he is absolutely a passive aggressive, condescending dick... couldn't have put it better myself. He's also a whiner and an idiot who obviously doesn't trouble himself with facts or history. First of all, Dick (which is what I'll call the author, since I don't know his name) writes: If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. Within the context of the article, Dick isn't referring to any actual steamrolling of the constitution that has taken place at the hands of the Bush administration (as long as there are terrorists out there... and there are always terrorists out there... it's apparently un-American to defend the Constitution, civil liberties, etc.). No, in the article, Dick is referring to changes in the tax code that the Obama administration has proposed (though they may not act on them for a year or two). The funny thing is that Dick appears to believe that these tax hikes will be unprecedented. He believes they will streamroll the constitution and change its landscape forever. In fact, all Obama plans to do is return the top two tax rates to what they were in 2000 (and throughout most of the 90's). Taxes will still be lower than they were in 2000 because he plans to leave the other brackets (which are now at lower rates than they were in 2000) untouched. Even the wealthiest 1% of households (with an average income of $1.6 million per year) will pay less than they paid in '93-'00. So the idea that Obama's tax plan will streamroll the constitution and change its landscape forever is hogwash. His proposed taxes are lower than they were just 8 years ago and in any case, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about taxes. I've read the constitution; obviously this guy hasn't. Even stronger evidence of the ridiculousness of this claim can be found if we look at history. Let's look at the top marginal Federal tax rates seen in recent history: 50% (1982-86) 70% (1965-85) 77% (1964) 91-92% (1946-63) 94% (1944-45) Under Obama's plan, the highest marginal tax rate starts at an income of $357,700 (in 2008 dollars) and will only be 39.6%. And it's important to note that this is the marginal rate, not the average rate. Someone making $400,000 won't be paying 39.6% of her income to Uncle Sam, she'll be paying 31.6%, making the absurd assumption that she has no deductions. In reality, she'll almost certainly be paying less. Finally, I'd just like to point out that two people with perhaps the highest tax burdens in the United States (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) both support Obama and his tax hikes. In fact, Buffet has said it's ridiculous how little tax he is expected to pay. I tend to agree, especially considering our budget deficit (not to mention our national debt). I for one would be happy to pay higher taxes... if I'm doing well, a large part of that success is owed to the country that provided me with my education and the infrastructure and opportunities to make a success of myself. I'd like to see that education and infrastructure get even better. I'd like to see poor kids get preventative health care. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I agree with Biden: paying taxes is patriotic.