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.
