Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BengalTiger on January 15, 2009, 01:31:55 pm
-
Found on another forum
To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however,is the changing political landscape in this country.*
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the back story.
I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.
Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this?
It's quite simple.
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.
So, 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.If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach,retired, and with no employees to worry about....
Signed, Your boss
Discuss..
-
Like any generalization it isn't universally true. However I do agree with the central message of it. "Stimulus" in the form of small amounts of free money will certainly help people in the short term (read: a few months) but it doesn't actually do anything for the economy. As far as I know (listened to an article), most of the stimulus money given to individuals was spent paying down debt or saved. While those are helpful in the short run for individuals, the economy as a whole doesn't benefit because three months later the same people are in the same position.
-
He is right. He is also wrong.
-
He is right. He is also wrong.
Concur. Makes very valid points (highlighting a lot of the best parts of fiscal conservativism.) But he also employs fallacy-of-vividity (POV storytelling is no substitute for statistics and economics research), and he activates a few myths about where taxes go (the welfare mom, for instance) that are pretty bizarre.
For instance, I didn't hear any criticism of massive waste in government spending, nor of the military budget, both of which he probably should've targeted.
He was right about the political storm that swept away the Constitution, though -- I imagine we'll all be glad to see the end of the Bush era.
Also, er, I'm betting this wasn't written by any business owner. It's probably an instructional fable being passed off as fact.
-
His economics are correct. The point is that more tax only suffocates medium-sized business. A lot of high-revenue, low-profit businesses will be tacked on a large amount of tax--which could amount to an additional worker (or more). Once you pass the "small-business" phase, you're stuck in a world with big government wanting every penny you made. It comes to the point that countries (ehem: China) without these barriers will be the big business of today and tomorrow.
If I was Obama's economic adviser (I'd be totally unqualified, but this is a what-if), I'd tell him to slash business taxes and levy a luxury-good tax. That should employ many more people, reduce total fixed and marginal costs, and overall put a lot more people into positions where they can now choose if they want to "play". It should also keep high-ticket items away from the mortgaged middle class--a 20% increase in overall cost of ownership would do quite a bit towards saying "enough is enough", and living with what you've got. Beyond that, I think that the government would be better to pay individual debts in a stimulus package then to pay everyone. Freezing both AIR and VIR mortgages temporarily (say for 3 months) and paying off 2-3 months worth (but require the normal monthly payments) would go a long way.
Anyways--if it wasn't for luxury goods and easily-available credit, many people would be in better positions today.
By the way--capitalism works best when there's nobody to export wealth to.
-
If I was Obama's economic adviser (I'd be totally unqualified, but this is a what-if), I'd tell him to slash business taxes
He'd tell you to leave his office, that idea is against his own of "redistributing wealth".
-
Try reading the rest of his sentence. And from that kind of knee-jerk reaction I have a feeling you're less than neutral about this 'letter' (which smacks of chain-letter email slop.)
-
Frankly that would be a better way to equalize wealth. If you want to take care of business going south, you start at the ground floor. That means have more people gainfully employed and thus consumers. They'll be contributing to the economy, they'll be making what they want, and there'll be more grass-roots support for peace. In addition, more people living and working in the USA would contribute greatly towards our public schools and universities, and the overall shift towards becoming more wealthy will be supported by learning. That's called advancement. Economic, social, technological, all mixed into one solution so simple that Washington hasn't committed to it in two centuries. That's why each and every government and economic structure is written about as if there were no problems. That's where we want to go, so we need to position ourselves to go there. Funny enough, that's pure competition capitalism--demand will stay constant, and each and every individual company in each and every industry will produce to their maximize revenue. Overall it's a cheery picture: a lot of lower-high class and upper-middle class managing the middle-class and hopefully eliminating lower-class. Unfortunately this is less than ideal in practice: as was seen by the Robber Barons over a century ago, size means profit and profit means power.
A capitalist economy has advantages with morale and motivation for entrepreneurs. A command economy has advantages with social and economic equality. When considering it in government terms, a capitalist economy can be best described as policed anarchy: there should be no controls and no barriers to entry, which will mean that industries are dominated by hundreds or thousands of medium-sized companies. And a command economy? Democratic communism. You get told what to build, and your hopeful motivation is a large range of candidates at all levels with good ideas.
The following line summarizes my reasons for disliking welfare in its current state.
If nobody works, who pays the bills?
-
Since people rarely (statistically) stay on welfare very long, it's hardly a crutch.
Anyway, Obama's contemplating a tax cut, so everyone should be pleased.
-
Since people rarely (statistically) stay on welfare very long, it's hardly a crutch.
Anyway, Obama's contemplating a tax cut, so everyone should be pleased.
What I'm saying is the government needs to figure out one position on this, and stick to it. We've had transition-period legislation for decades, and nothing has become of it. So either finish the job or revoke it all. I think we'd be more productive and better able to compete with the rising East if we revoked it. Taxes are a necessary evil, at least in this stage of the Human game. Other than that, I'd like to see the Feds supporting our own nations in expanding into the East. Better competition will end up meaning that the 1st World is not only justified, but also protected from the less-expensive labor (by nature) of the 2nd World, while we all strive to help the 3rd World advance, solving collective human issues.
-
Anyway, Obama's contemplating a tax cut, so everyone should be pleased.
"Contemplating" a tax cut is a considerable downgrade from his campaign promises, if I recall.
Not that I expected him to be able to try and spend his way out of a recession and cut taxes at the same time.
-
Anyway, Obama's contemplating a tax cut, so everyone should be pleased.
"Contemplating" a tax cut is a considerable downgrade from his campaign promises, if I recall.
Not that I expected him to be able to try and spend his way out of a recession and cut taxes at the same time.
Well, in his campaign he was saying he'd roll back tax cuts (i.e. raise taxes.) So depending on your opinion of taxes, it's a downgrade or an upgrade.
-
Better competition will end up meaning that the 1st World is not only justified, but also protected from the less-expensive labor (by nature) of the 2nd World, while we all strive to help the 3rd World advance, solving collective human issues.
2nd world? What 2nd world nations are there left?
-
Better competition will end up meaning that the 1st World is not only justified, but also protected from the less-expensive labor (by nature) of the 2nd World, while we all strive to help the 3rd World advance, solving collective human issues.
2nd world? What 2nd world nations are there left?
Realistically, I'd consider India and China the main contenders for a new "2nd world" title. They're not as big as we are, but they're closing. Our wealth has been and is being exported, which causes problems for our long-term viability. So either until we're all equal or we're all dead, I don't think that trade between East and West is particularly healthy.
-
We're seeing the first signs that Reaganomics might be relegated to the septic tank of history where it belongs; perhaps this is the shrill, obnoxious sound of its death throes.
-
By the way--when I talk about economics, I think it's best not to make a distinction between ethical and unethical.
Anyways--my thought, as I've put down a few times now, is that we need to choose our path. Standing on economic middle ground only hurts the USA and most of the West as well.
-
I find it odd that you chaps, who I presume are American, talk about economic middle ground when the country is facing a $3 tillion defecit. I don't even know how many zeros is in a trillion. "o,o,ooo,ooo" maybe ?
And I'm not being smug as Mr Brown seems keen to see the UK go the same way.
-
12 zeros
-
Somewhat related: this (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/15/illinois-village-taxes-arcade-out-business) and this (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/16/rip-circuit-city)
:eek2: :nervous: :shaking:
-
I find it odd that you chaps, who I presume are American, talk about economic middle ground when the country is facing a $3 tillion defecit. I don't even know how many zeros is in a trillion. "o,o,ooo,ooo" maybe ?
And I'm not being smug as Mr Brown seems keen to see the UK go the same way.
The difference is there's two ways to get us out of a such a deficit. One is to tax the hell out of our businesses, the other is tax the hell out of our citizens. I'd prefer the latter route, but only if it's done with full equality. Combine that with smaller government (including less war) and less pork-barreling (much of which got us into this mess in the first place), and the USA can be economically viable again. I'll be writing letters to Obama about this--he needs to decide if he wants US and Western industry to fall behind that of the rest of the world. Same thing goes with Gordon Brown--he needs to decide where the UK is going.
-
12 zeros
For the sake of completeness, that's only if it's short scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales), as otherwise it's 18 zeros. The US uses short scale it seems. :p
-
Only terrorists use long scale.
-
Only terrorists use long scale.
You forgot Poland
The US budget, since the discussion moved to it:
(http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/POLITICS/070205/US_Budget_chart_story.gif)
And the article I pulled the image from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16928315/
-
Trending in the right direction...now if only we could balance it.
-
I'm more concerned about the increase in funding, rather than the listed percentages.
-
How do 1954 USD's compare to 2006 USD's?
-
One thing I'd like to point out about that article is that it is meant to hold the intended audience hostage through fear of losing their jobs. I see terrorism at work here, and I cannot help but despise whoever wrote it. People bold enough to use the same methods (Claiming that protecting our homes against redevelopment would make life difficult) nearly destroyed my home this summer, and I will give anyone else using the same methods no quarter. Effectively it says "Give me my way or I'll make these people's lives difficult simply because I'm a cranky baby and I want some candy." It is childish and immature. Grow up people.
I will not discredit people who have made companies from nothing, but you should recognize that you are dealing with a very large sum of money that grants you a very comfortable lifestyle. Sure, $200,000 in taxes--what was the income? It probably dwarfed that. And taking on the mane of a corporation means taking on added responsibilities. You should know what your responsibilities will be when you take on that role. To say that companies' taxes are too high is like saying that asking a king for a cent will collapse an empire. I cannot see why we should listen to this when a child dies from a preventable cause like hunger or curable disease every three seconds. They need that money more than you do. If you need to stop going to Disney World every month to keep from indebting yourself, do it. It won't hurt you that bad.
I cannot stand this article when it says that the highest paid person in a corporation deserves more money. Sure, you devoted more time and energy to it, but at present you probably lead the most comfortable lifestyle of any of the employees. I seem to lack the necessary amount of narcissism and disregard for my fellow man to actually see any morality in punishing people less prosperous than you for things you cannot control. What will you do with the money you save, Mr. Director? Donate it to charity? Save the hungry? Invest in new groundbreaking medicines? Improve a school? I doubt it. We can most likely expect to find you on a luxury cruise somewhere. Greed is all this is.
And coming to Wall Street, their policies have been so irresponsible that I do not believe they deserve the bailout they got. The only way that bailout flew is because they held the US economy hostage. "Give us $700 million or we will not lend." Lending is what the American economy is based on. Without it, everything falls apart. They saw this and exploited it. For $300 billion we could have bought out all the subprime mortgages, potentially averting crisis. The uncertainty comes from not knowing if the lenders would clean up their act.
-
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
-
One thing I'd like to point out about that article is that it is meant to hold the intended audience hostage through fear of losing their jobs. I see terrorism at work here, and I cannot help but despise whoever wrote it. People bold enough to use the same methods (Claiming that protecting our homes against redevelopment would make life difficult) nearly destroyed my home this summer, and I will give anyone else using the same methods no quarter. Effectively it says "Give me my way or I'll make these people's lives difficult simply because I'm a cranky baby and I want some candy." It is childish and immature. Grow up people.
So the boss terrorizes the workers. What will he get from them? What does he demand?
All I can find is that he doesn't want to pay taxes which go to pay for bailing out irresponsible people, who bought more than they could pay for. Hell, he doesn't want taxes in general, but who does?
I will not discredit people who have made companies from nothing, but you should recognize that you are dealing with a very large sum of money that grants you a very comfortable lifestyle. Sure, $200,000 in taxes--what was the income? It probably dwarfed that. And taking on the mane of a corporation means taking on added responsibilities. You should know what your responsibilities will be when you take on that role. To say that companies' taxes are too high is like saying that asking a king for a cent will collapse an empire. I cannot see why we should listen to this when a child dies from a preventable cause like hunger or curable disease every three seconds. They need that money more than you do. If you need to stop going to Disney World every month to keep from indebting yourself, do it. It won't hurt you that bad.
I doubt 200k for an owner of an 18 person company would compare to 1 cent for a king. I wouldn't be surprized if a quarter of what the company makes goes for various taxes, and asking a king for a quarter of his budget not only could, but probably would put his country in a pretty grim finiancial situation, especially when this tribute would be paid every year.
Also- how much of his taxes go for preventing the deaths of children, since you've started that topic?
I cannot stand this article when it says that the highest paid person in a corporation deserves more money. Sure, you devoted more time and energy to it, but at present you probably lead the most comfortable lifestyle of any of the employees. I seem to lack the necessary amount of narcissism and disregard for my fellow man to actually see any morality in punishing people less prosperous than you for things you cannot control. What will you do with the money you save, Mr. Director? Donate it to charity? Save the hungry? Invest in new groundbreaking medicines? Improve a school? I doubt it. We can most likely expect to find you on a luxury cruise somewhere. Greed is all this is.
Well I don't see why the person who invested most in the company shouldn't be the highest payed. Envy is all this is.
And what is the boss's punishment, because I don't seem to get this one?
And coming to Wall Street, their policies have been so irresponsible that I do not believe they deserve the bailout they got. The only way that bailout flew is because they held the US economy hostage. "Give us $700 million or we will not lend." Lending is what the American economy is based on. Without it, everything falls apart. They saw this and exploited it. For $300 billion we could have bought out all the subprime mortgages, potentially averting crisis. The uncertainty comes from not knowing if the lenders would clean up their act.
I agree with this part. I'll have to add that it kinda sucks that everyone's paying for their mistake. The directors who created the whole subprime program should pay for the crisis, not Joe Citizen.
-
Well I don't see why the person who invested most in the company shouldn't be the highest payed. Envy is all this is.
And what is the boss's punishment, because I don't seem to get this one?
Oh?
Not too long ago, a company that had lost 99.25% of its stock value over the past year paid its CEO a total of $1 million (a $600k salary and $400k bonus). The company had started with $7 million in capital, and at this point it had lost almost all of it.
This CEO, whose brilliant management strategies have caused the company to go bankrupt, is getting 1/7 of the entire company's assets.
I don't f*cking care whose running a company. That's messed up. You cannot look at the corporate CEOs jobs and say they deserve the amount of money they are paid. It is an imbalance in the system that must be corrected.
-
One thing I'd like to point out about that article is that it is meant to hold the intended audience hostage through fear of losing their jobs. I see terrorism at work here, and I cannot help but despise whoever wrote it. People bold enough to use the same methods (Claiming that protecting our homes against redevelopment would make life difficult) nearly destroyed my home this summer, and I will give anyone else using the same methods no quarter. Effectively it says "Give me my way or I'll make these people's lives difficult simply because I'm a cranky baby and I want some candy." It is childish and immature. Grow up people.
So the boss terrorizes the workers. What will he get from them? What does he demand?
All I can find is that he doesn't want to pay taxes which go to pay for bailing out irresponsible people, who bought more than they could pay for. Hell, he doesn't want taxes in general, but who does?
His demand can be interpreted as something along the lines of "Quit raising my taxes or I will harm my employees fiscally." It's a hostage tactic, without guns and (hopefully) death. It's still akin to terrorism in my book. I respect that people don't want taxes, but if there were no taxes, governments would not function. They wouldn't have the money necessary to. The effective end result is a country in which the rich have nearly complete control because so much then depends on their cooperation. The more extreme end result is anarchy. Taxes are not fun, but they are a necessary lesser of two evils. When this crisis unfolded, I didn't get that taxes were being used to pay off irresponsibles, I got that the US added $800 million to its economy, effectively lowering the value of the dollar and left taxes unaffected.
We do not need more taxes, we need smarter taxes.
I will not discredit people who have made companies from nothing, but you should recognize that you are dealing with a very large sum of money that grants you a very comfortable lifestyle. Sure, $200,000 in taxes--what was the income? It probably dwarfed that. And taking on the mane of a corporation means taking on added responsibilities. You should know what your responsibilities will be when you take on that role. To say that companies' taxes are too high is like saying that asking a king for a cent will collapse an empire. I cannot see why we should listen to this when a child dies from a preventable cause like hunger or curable disease every three seconds. They need that money more than you do. If you need to stop going to Disney World every month to keep from indebting yourself, do it. It won't hurt you that bad.
I doubt 200k for an owner of an 18 person company would compare to 1 cent for a king. I wouldn't be surprized if a quarter of what the company makes goes for various taxes, and asking a king for a quarter of his budget not only could, but probably would put his country in a pretty grim finiancial situation, especially when this tribute would be paid every year.
Also- how much of his taxes go for preventing the deaths of children, since you've started that topic?
If 200k is a quarter of the income, 800k is the total. Minus 200k and the remainder is 600k. 600k/18 people = 33k, assuming all employees paid equally. That qualifies as poverty. I fear that since the US has the most taxation loopholes, 200k is probably a lesser percent than expected. And by king I didn't mean someone ruling in some undeveloped nation. I meant someone along the lines of the King of England. Corporations are the modern equivalent of empires.
As I understand, the two largest parts of the US budget are Welfare and Defense. Child mortality rates are low in America, and this spending is mainly for health and education. So taxes won't make much of a dent in global child mortality rates. We have seen that most developed nations certainly aren't in a rush to help third world nations. This leaves such work up to individual initiative.
I cannot stand this article when it says that the highest paid person in a corporation deserves more money. Sure, you devoted more time and energy to it, but at present you probably lead the most comfortable lifestyle of any of the employees. I seem to lack the necessary amount of narcissism and disregard for my fellow man to actually see any morality in punishing people less prosperous than you for things you cannot control. What will you do with the money you save, Mr. Director? Donate it to charity? Save the hungry? Invest in new groundbreaking medicines? Improve a school? I doubt it. We can most likely expect to find you on a luxury cruise somewhere. Greed is all this is.
Well I don't see why the person who invested most in the company shouldn't be the highest payed. Envy is all this is.
And what is the boss's punishment, because I don't seem to get this one?
The boss's punishment is firing people. I agree that the most involved member should have the highest paycheck, but saying that you will sacrifice someone else to maintain your own income is too distasteful for me. Work as a team, bear the brunt as a team. That's what this really comes down to. And I do not envy him. To me the person who wrote this is inconsiderate. I cannot recall him mentioning the welfare of his employees. This is something of a grave sin to me.
I'm sorry for the acidity with which I wrote this. I have nothing against entrepeneurs, but against CEOs who act with indiscretion that this director is showing signs of. Last night I was so angry I didn't take into account the socioeconomic level of the person writing the letter. The big men are the ones I am aiming at. I found their policies embodied in this letter, and aimed at the wrong person. I recognize that as a small company this person's business is in a tight spot, and does deserve a break. Other larger companies deserve no leniency.
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
Amen. I agree with this completely.
-
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
Amen. I agree with this completely.
But our only hope of this happening is Obama, and even Obama has limitations when it comes to big businesses. People with money have power, and therefore they prevent themselves from losing money because their all a bunch of greedy dirtbags, which is what caused the entire fiscal crisis we're in, and why Ford's managers flew to D.C. in a corporate jet to ask for bailout money.
-
But our only hope of this happening is Obama
Don't be so sure about that.
-
One thing I'd like to point out about that article is that it is meant to hold the intended audience hostage through fear of losing their jobs. I see terrorism at work here, and I cannot help but despise whoever wrote it. People bold enough to use the same methods (Claiming that protecting our homes against redevelopment would make life difficult) nearly destroyed my home this summer, and I will give anyone else using the same methods no quarter. Effectively it says "Give me my way or I'll make these people's lives difficult simply because I'm a cranky baby and I want some candy." It is childish and immature. Grow up people.
So the boss terrorizes the workers. What will he get from them? What does he demand?
All I can find is that he doesn't want to pay taxes which go to pay for bailing out irresponsible people, who bought more than they could pay for. Hell, he doesn't want taxes in general, but who does?
His demand can be interpreted as something along the lines of "Quit raising my taxes or I will harm my employees fiscally." It's a hostage tactic, without guns and (hopefully) death. It's still akin to terrorism in my book. I respect that people don't want taxes, but if there were no taxes, governments would not function. They wouldn't have the money necessary to. The effective end result is a country in which the rich have nearly complete control because so much then depends on their cooperation. The more extreme end result is anarchy. Taxes are not fun, but they are a necessary lesser of two evils. When this crisis unfolded, I didn't get that taxes were being used to pay off irresponsibles, I got that the US added $800 million to its economy, effectively lowering the value of the dollar and left taxes unaffected.
We do not need more taxes, we need smarter taxes.
Not every big company can deal with tax increases around every corner. That being said, as it sounds, the company is in the small/medium size range (at least theoretically). It may not be able to afford to grow with taxes any higher. I don't interpret this as holding people hostage--I interpret it as a man who built his life from nothing venting about how BIG government is doing things to destroy it. It's not a nice thought--you live in America, the land of the free, the home of the brave. You put your life, for decades, on the line to build a company. You succeeded so far, so losing it all to additional taxes isn't on your agenda. He has a point--consumerism is rampant. Many people bought into it and are paying out the nose right now. I myself am partly guilty, but I only buy dirt-cheap wants and wants that could make me a few bucks.
I will not discredit people who have made companies from nothing, but you should recognize that you are dealing with a very large sum of money that grants you a very comfortable lifestyle. Sure, $200,000 in taxes--what was the income? It probably dwarfed that. And taking on the mane of a corporation means taking on added responsibilities. You should know what your responsibilities will be when you take on that role. To say that companies' taxes are too high is like saying that asking a king for a cent will collapse an empire. I cannot see why we should listen to this when a child dies from a preventable cause like hunger or curable disease every three seconds. They need that money more than you do. If you need to stop going to Disney World every month to keep from indebting yourself, do it. It won't hurt you that bad.
I doubt 200k for an owner of an 18 person company would compare to 1 cent for a king. I wouldn't be surprized if a quarter of what the company makes goes for various taxes, and asking a king for a quarter of his budget not only could, but probably would put his country in a pretty grim finiancial situation, especially when this tribute would be paid every year.
Also- how much of his taxes go for preventing the deaths of children, since you've started that topic?
If 200k is a quarter of the income, 800k is the total. Minus 200k and the remainder is 600k. 600k/18 people = 33k, assuming all employees paid equally. That qualifies as poverty. I fear that since the US has the most taxation loopholes, 200k is probably a lesser percent than expected. And by king I didn't mean someone ruling in some undeveloped nation. I meant someone along the lines of the King of England. Corporations are the modern equivalent of empires.
As I understand, the two largest parts of the US budget are Welfare and Defense. Child mortality rates are low in America, and this spending is mainly for health and education. So taxes won't make much of a dent in global child mortality rates. We have seen that most developed nations certainly aren't in a rush to help third world nations. This leaves such work up to individual initiative.
I doubt that taxes would be as low as 20%. Many major corporations are paying 45% or more, and when all is added up, over half the corporation's expenses and then half the employee's expenses amount to >50% tax. Remember that the company pays taxes at every level, commonly including sales tax. They pay sales tax, they pay flat-rate taxes, they pay a tax on profits, they pay taxes on employees, they pay taxes on equipment, they pay taxes on land, the employee pays taxes on profit, the employee pays taxes on land, on goods, on travel, on anything the government can tax. Saying "I'm taxed in the 33% bracket" doesn't say everything. You still will get taxed on interest made with money in the bank, with your CDs and long-term investments, with all stock market earnings, and even sales tax. The tax doesn't end. So when considering how all this money in circulation, a lot of it will be paid to the government for taxes.
I cannot stand this article when it says that the highest paid person in a corporation deserves more money. Sure, you devoted more time and energy to it, but at present you probably lead the most comfortable lifestyle of any of the employees. I seem to lack the necessary amount of narcissism and disregard for my fellow man to actually see any morality in punishing people less prosperous than you for things you cannot control. What will you do with the money you save, Mr. Director? Donate it to charity? Save the hungry? Invest in new groundbreaking medicines? Improve a school? I doubt it. We can most likely expect to find you on a luxury cruise somewhere. Greed is all this is.
Well I don't see why the person who invested most in the company shouldn't be the highest payed. Envy is all this is.
And what is the boss's punishment, because I don't seem to get this one?
The boss's punishment is firing people. I agree that the most involved member should have the highest paycheck, but saying that you will sacrifice someone else to maintain your own income is too distasteful for me. Work as a team, bear the brunt as a team. That's what this really comes down to. And I do not envy him. To me the person who wrote this is inconsiderate. I cannot recall him mentioning the welfare of his employees. This is something of a grave sin to me.
I'm sorry for the acidity with which I wrote this. I have nothing against entrepeneurs, but against CEOs who act with indiscretion that this director is showing signs of. Last night I was so angry I didn't take into account the socioeconomic level of the person writing the letter. The big men are the ones I am aiming at. I found their policies embodied in this letter, and aimed at the wrong person. I recognize that as a small company this person's business is in a tight spot, and does deserve a break. Other larger companies deserve no leniency.
Not every big man is undeserving of what he paid. You're correct--there are many Fortune 500 CEOs that don't deserve a cent because they bankrupted the corporation, but there are many more CEOs that are silent though this entire thing. They pay these extraordinary taxes and keep their businesses breaking even at least. You definitely have a case though--so many crooked CEOs and CEOs who don't deserve even a job managing a B&M make it to the top and make a boatload of money that way. Any company seeking government funds should have to adhere to a CEO-salary-cap.
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
Amen. I agree with this completely.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. We have to be careful about who we tax and how. Also do realize that Exxon/Mobil is more or less sitting on the sidelines. Right now it's THEIR bottom line that's hurting. The commodities exchange is what sets the price of a barrel of oil, which is set by individual traders. They're screwing with the price, which is why I think that Oil should be delisted from that exchange.
What I would like to see is smarter taxes for companies operating in the USA.
Total of 45% tax rate, and can be waived to 3% if they meet 3 criteria.
1) Purchase raw materials from the USA.
2) Manufacturer their good or service with US citizens in the USA.
3) Sell at least 25% of the time internationally.
That type of thing would award US companies for bringing wealth into the USA. It's the employees who pay taxes for them, and the ultimate benefit is either there's a void in foreign companies (replaced by US companies) or that US companies can afford to hire more people and expand internationally.
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
Amen. I agree with this completely.
But our only hope of this happening is Obama, and even Obama has limitations when it comes to big businesses. People with money have power, and therefore they prevent themselves from losing money because their all a bunch of greedy dirtbags, which is what caused the entire fiscal crisis we're in, and why Ford's managers flew to D.C. in a corporate jet to ask for bailout money.
In my opinion, it's only Ford that should have flown that way. Ford's not on the very edge of bankruptcy. They knew times were changing, they sold their brands, and are well into the process of replacing their vehicles with those their customers want. Do you realize that Ford makes a similar or better product than Honda and Hyundai for less? And the parts are easier to find than foreign-designed cars. I don't think Obama has the guts to even hear where we want to go. So long as a president doesn't decide what to do with our economy, the economy will NOT be on his or her side. And so long as they side-step the issue, it only gets worse on the next go-around.
-
Oh?
Not too long ago, a company that had lost 99.25% of its stock value over the past year paid its CEO a total of $1 million (a $600k salary and $400k bonus). The company had started with $7 million in capital, and at this point it had lost almost all of it.
This CEO, whose brilliant management strategies have caused the company to go bankrupt, is getting 1/7 of the entire company's assets.
I don't f*cking care whose running a company. That's messed up. You cannot look at the corporate CEOs jobs and say they deserve the amount of money they are paid. It is an imbalance in the system that must be corrected.
Well here I agree, the CEO screws up, the CEO should pay and not get payed...
And how do you lose over 99% out of 7M USD in a 'not too long' time? Someone's doing something right...
His demand can be interpreted as something along the lines of "Quit raising my taxes or I will harm my employees fiscally."
I've read "Quit raising my taxes or I will go out of business". And it will harm the employees fically, but as a side effect. After all the guy wrote he won't pay anyone 50% cash for 100% work and he understands that noone would work 100% for 50% cash, so he's not really hell bent on harming them.
It's a hostage tactic, without guns and (hopefully) death. It's still akin to terrorism in my book. I respect that people don't want taxes, but if there were no taxes, governments would not function. They wouldn't have the money necessary to. The effective end result is a country in which the rich have nearly complete control because so much then depends on their cooperation. The more extreme end result is anarchy. Taxes are not fun, but they are a necessary lesser of two evils. When this crisis unfolded, I didn't get that taxes were being used to pay off irresponsibles, I got that the US added $800 million to its economy, effectively lowering the value of the dollar and left taxes unaffected.
We do not need more taxes, we need smarter taxes.
I get the idea why there should be taxes, IMHO income taxes should a be low % for everyone. If all goes well, we'd have politicians thinking of new ways to increase people's income everytime they'd need cash for public spending.
And paying banks with government (or tax payer's actually) cash is in fact the Boss's cash used to fix the mistakes of unresponsible people, be it the ones who took or gave the credits, that's up for debate.
If 200k is a quarter of the income, 800k is the total. Minus 200k and the remainder is 600k. 600k/18 people = 33k, assuming all employees paid equally. That qualifies as poverty. I fear that since the US has the most taxation loopholes, 200k is probably a lesser percent than expected. And by king I didn't mean someone ruling in some undeveloped nation. I meant someone along the lines of the King of England. Corporations are the modern equivalent of empires.
So guess the company could make more than 800k in that case. Either way, for $200k the owner could hire 4 more people for 50k annually each, and make a larger profit, and everyone would be financially happy.
And you've wrote 200k for the boss guy is like a cent to a king, not '200k for a CEO of some huge corporation', which would be true.
As I understand, the two largest parts of the US budget are Welfare and Defense. Child mortality rates are low in America, and this spending is mainly for health and education. So taxes won't make much of a dent in global child mortality rates. We have seen that most developed nations certainly aren't in a rush to help third world nations. This leaves such work up to individual initiative.
Charity, in other words. And the US is the largest donor in terms of charity as far as I know. Now if US and European companies figured out labor is cheaper in Africa than in China, the problem of hunger would go away as soon as the Africans could make cash to buy food (but that's for a whole other debate I guess).
The boss's punishment is firing people. I agree that the most involved member should have the highest paycheck, but saying that you will sacrifice someone else to maintain your own income is too distasteful for me. Work as a team, bear the brunt as a team. That's what this really comes down to. And I do not envy him. To me the person who wrote this is inconsiderate. I cannot recall him mentioning the welfare of his employees. This is something of a grave sin to me.
He does mention "he won't have any workers to worry about" at the end though, so I don't really think he's there only to suck up what the company, as a whole, creates. Then there's the fact he's writing about taxes, and not his workers. :p
I'm sorry for the acidity with which I wrote this. I have nothing against entrepeneurs, but against CEOs who act with indiscretion that this director is showing signs of. Last night I was so angry I didn't take into account the socioeconomic level of the person writing the letter. The big men are the ones I am aiming at. I found their policies embodied in this letter, and aimed at the wrong person. I recognize that as a small company this person's business is in a tight spot, and does deserve a break. Other larger companies deserve no leniency.
OK, no problem.
We need better tax brackets for businesses, so Exxon can get its ass taxed to f*cking death and all the small companies can flourish.
Amen. I agree with this completely.
[/quote]
So after taxing the big dudes the f&&& to death, what's going to happen with the thousands of small dudes that work for them? And the tens of thousands of other small dudes that work as vendors/suppliers/do shipping/maintain websites/tons of other stuff?
It's not as easy a problem as it might look.
What I would like to see is smarter taxes for companies operating in the USA.
Total of 45% tax rate, and can be waived to 3% if they meet 3 criteria.
1) Purchase raw materials from the USA.
2) Manufacturer their good or service with US citizens in the USA.
3) Sell at least 25% of the time internationally.
Tomorrow this lady named Pelosi will knock on your door for that. With a 30 pound hammer.
Said hammer will be supplied by one of over 12 million illegal US residents.
Whew, long post.
-
Right now it's THEIR bottom line that's hurting.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
NO
Exxonmobile and other gas companies got interrogated by the government because last year they broke their own world record for profit margins during a depression.
PROFIT margins.
Profit is the amount of money a company has left over from its revenue after you subtract all of the expenses that the company must pay.
If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar—two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.
You are telling me a company that has made $40.6 billion in profit and a CEO with a $16 million salary can't afford to pay higher taxes, or perhaps afford to increase the salaries of its employees?
What. The. F*ck.
Taxes that hurt big businesses only hurt its employees because most CEO's of large companies are fat, disgusting, greedy pigs. You can argue that CEO's deserve to be paid large sums of money, but 16 million a year?!
Capitalism is great, but like communism, it is fundamentally flawed by human greed, resulting in the ups and downs that have plagued our country. Everything is great until the bubble pops, and then the poor people get screwed and the rich hide away in their mansions. History has shown, over and over and over, that government regulation is necessary.
We can have an American dream without needing to pay CEOs enough to buy a private jet.
-
Right now it's THEIR bottom line that's hurting.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
NO
Exxonmobile and other gas companies got interrogated by the government because last year they broke their own world record for profit margins during a depression.
PROFIT margins.
Profit is the amount of money a company has left over from its revenue after you subtract all of the expenses that the company must pay.
If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank's economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar—two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.
You are telling me a company that has made $40.6 billion in profit and a CEO with a $16 million salary can't afford to pay higher taxes, or perhaps afford to increase the salaries of its employees?
What. The. F*ck.
Taxes that hurt big businesses only hurt its employees because most CEO's of large companies are fat, disgusting, greedy pigs. You can argue that CEO's deserve to be paid large sums of money, but 16 million a year?!
Capitalism is great, but like communism, it is fundamentally flawed by human greed, resulting in the ups and downs that have plagued our country. Everything is great until the bubble pops, and then the poor people get screwed and the rich hide away in their mansions. History has shown, over and over and over, that government regulation is necessary.
We can have an American dream without needing to pay CEOs enough to buy a private jet.
Stop looking at 2007 numbers. They're effectively farmers on a big scale--their product is oil, and they sell it for whatever the Commodities Exchange says it's worth. With the price of oil plummeting, that's not exactly a nice spot to be in. Look at ExxonMobil's balance sheet. I'll just give their 2007 numbers. Their revenue was $400b, their profit was 10% of that--$40b. Now, I'm waiting to see their Q4 numbers and perhaps simply calculate the impact of oil plummeting had on their bottom line.
By the way--do note that the USA is actively trying to disband OPEC. It's not in Western interest to have oil prices through the roof.
Just as a side note--if I were to build a multi-billion dollar company, private airplanes would interest me greatly. And do note that in the case of Detroit, it's the company that owned the airplane, not the CEO.
-
16 mil a year is friggin too much IMHO. I personally wouldn't even know what to do wit that amount of money - at least anything sensible.
Speaking of which, rising oil prices are unavoidable. Common low of supply and demand. Oil isn't infinite. As it's supply goes down so will the price go up.
-
With the price of oil plummeting, that's not exactly a nice spot to be in.
This is true. It doesn't mean they couldn't have paid huge gobs of taxes in 2007.