Will Obama Default?

I do employee several people in my "one" man company. I have 15 employees, who help with the daily scheduling, paperwork, insurance and so forth and they help me be much more productive and I greatly appreciate their help. But they can not do surgery or diagnose diseases. Only the doctor can do so. Without the doctor performing those procedures, there is no chargable production for services and no income to the practice. As to the rental business, I employ at least a dozen people or companies, for maintanence, repairs, and so forth. Both businesses also indirectly support dozens if not hundreds of employees of companies we purchase supplies, lab services, appliances, and so forth.

Thanks for the info.

I didn't say he doesn't employ people. I said he does not create new jobs. Indirectly he may help but as a 1 person company he doesn't directly create jobs. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Of course a "one man" office creates jobs. I've not built a house since '09, but before that I built around 10 houses a year for about as many years. I didn't any 941 taxes, but I employed several contractors. Predispositioned notions aside, small business does employ Americans to the tune of about 50% of the workforce. I read today in a newly released poll, 69% of small business owners do not plan to add any new jobs. Jdriller below seems to create jobs as a one man business.

I do employee several people in my "one" man company. I have 15 employees, who help with the daily scheduling, paperwork, insurance and so forth and they help me be much more productive and I greatly appreciate their help. But they can not do surgery or diagnose diseases. Only the doctor can do so. Without the doctor performing those procedures, there is no chargable production for services and no income to the practice. As to the rental business, I employ at least a dozen people or companies, for maintanence, repairs, and so forth. Both businesses also indirectly support dozens if not hundreds of employees of companies we purchase supplies, lab services, appliances, and so forth. Originally Posted by Jdriller

I know (and am one) "one man-business" (sole-propriotorships) who use indepedent contractors. Those contractors depend on dozens of similar one-man businesses to keep them working.

It really shows a lack of understanding of how small business work when some Democrats opine otherwise on such matters.

A question I have not asked my CPA is that when I sale the houses (I think that profit will be Captial Gains) if I have carried over passive losses, will thoses losses be a deduction off of the Captial Gains income since this will be a completely different kind of income. I suspect any passive losses not used against passive income will be lost completely and never qualify as a deduction from personal income or Captial Gains income. Originally Posted by Jdriller

I think that you do get to add your passive losses to your basis when computing LT capital gains if the losses are related to the property in question, which I think is your question.

One option is to spend more than 500 hours on your rent houses each year and then you can claim it as active income and/or losses. At least that was the active/passive income dividing line when I owned thoroughbred horses. But look up "material participation." Seems like that was the catch phrase. Of course that law or reg could have changed, so check with your accountant or tax lawyer.

Back to your main point about how much you have to earn in gross sales to generate some amount of net income, that is, at base, simply a complaint about being in a low margin business.

Quote: from WTF
Originally Posted by Jdriller
I don't know where you get 3,000 taxes on each additional 100,000 income over 250,000. .

"Hot Damn where did you Repub's go to freaking school?

You already are paying taxes. If they increase by 3%, you are only paying an extra 6k on 200k in income!"

Wrong. You must subtract 35% of the extra 200.000 or 70,000, netting after taxes only an additional 140,000 and then pay an additional 6,000 out of the 140,000. You don't have 200,000 because the tax man already took 70,000 away. So you are really paying 6k extra on 140,000, not on 200,000. Of course, since were "rich" what difference does another 6k matter. Originally Posted by Jdriller

Your math is wrong. WTF's statement is correct. 38% of $200,000 is $76,000. $200k - 76 k is 124k. 35% of 200k is 70k. 200k-70k = 130k 130k - the extra 6k (.03 x 200,000) is 124k. You are paying an extra 6k on 200k of income.

I'll be the first to admit that I have absolutely no clue how taxes work in relation to rich people and corporations and politics and the whole nine. I do know that we have a country that's probably going to completely collapse in on itself financially within the next few years (being generous) like a supernova. Say it does. Say the Government hits a financial wall equal equal to The Apocalypse, to where there's just no more money. I'm talking a screeching financial halt and shutdown.

What happens to rich people's money? I mean, it's not like billionaires and millionaires have piles of real money stacked in a corner with their name on it. Wealth or financial 'value', for all intents and purposes, is a piece of paper or data on a computer saying Joe Schmoe and all his 'stuff' is worth THIS amount.

What happens if we as a country hit that proverbial abyss of financial destruction?

Of course a "one man" office creates jobs. I've not built a house since '09, but before that I built around 10 houses a year for about as many years. I didn't any 941 taxes, but I employed several contractors. Predispositioned notions aside, small business does employ Americans to the tune of about 50% of the workforce. I read today in a newly released poll, 69% of small business owners do not plan to add any new jobs. Jdriller below seems to create jobs as a one man business. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

My mistake. I thought he was the sole employee of his company. He did in fact directly create all of the jobs in his company.

But again as I said before, there is a difference between employing and creating. Creating is more of an indicator that small businesses are being created. No concept covers every example but if you need a plumber to unstop your drain, you employ a plumber. You didn't create the need for a new plumber in town, no permanent job was created. 1 of the 50% of small business employed people shows up. That is the difference between creates and employ to me.

The difference between the words applies more to the example I based on incorrectly thinking jdriller was a sole employee. I stated numerous times he helped generate income for others.

I know (and am one) "one man-business" (sole-propriotorships) who use indepedent contractors. Those contractors depend on dozens of similar one-man businesses to keep them working.

It really shows a lack of understanding of how small business work when some Democrats opine otherwise on such matters. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

All businesses work about the same. If you have a regular need for a skill and if it is cost effective, hire permanently. If not, get subcontractors. But they have nothing to do with this. If you had read all the posts involved in this, you would have seen subcontractors mentioned. You would have seen an explanation for what I was saying. Do you know what "employ" means? There was a disagreement over terms.
Once again seeing only what you want to see and the inability to use unbiased analysis leaps out, complete with your inevitable use of an ad hominem.
It's good to be back.

I'll be the first to admit that I have absolutely no clue how taxes work in relation to rich people and corporations and politics and the whole nine. I do know that we have a country that's probably going to completely collapse in on itself financially within the next few years (being generous) like a supernova. Say it does. Say the Government hits a financial wall equal equal to The Apocalypse, to where there's just no more money. I'm talking a screeching financial halt and shutdown.

What happens to rich people's money? I mean, it's not like billionaires and millionaires have piles of real money stacked in a corner with their name on it. Wealth or financial 'value', for all intents and purposes, is a piece of paper or data on a computer saying Joe Schmoe and all his 'stuff' is worth THIS amount.

What happens if we as a country hit that proverbial abyss of financial destruction? Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

depends on what assets you hold, how that class of asset is affected by the melt-down, and what currency the asset is valued in.

I have cash in bank accounts. Most of it is denominated in dollars. If the dollar falls relative to other currencies, unless I hedge, it looses value. However, I also hold bonds issued by international governments. Say the German government is substantially less effected. These bonds are valued in marks. They gain in value, at least in relative terms.

Same thing with stocks. If I own stock in any given international company, it depends on how that company's fortune is affected by a U.S. meltdown. For example, some Chinese companies that I own get most of their demand from internal demand. Others, say PetroBas, a Brazilian integrated petroleum company, would probably be very significantly affected because the U.S. meltdown would take the price of oil down substantially.

In short, there is no way to generalize. It depends very much on what your holdings are; what the details of the collapse are; and whether you have any leverage or not. If you are widely diversified, currency hedged, and have no debt, you should be in good shape. However, I have been increasing my cash holdings and hedging about 1/3 of my U.S. cash equivalent holdings, which is up in the past six months.

OR (more importantly) will the Re-pube Congress default?

Quit asking these silly "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. You're growing tiresome and even making me long for the return of Marshall - well, not really.....

MMM:

Your (You’re?) just a drive up poster. You take what others post; make some minor commentsAren’t you the guy you posts a series of dashes as a response? and never offer any thing of substance and then move along. Of course you would say minor comment or nothing of substance since I frequently disagree with what you say, ask for proof of your statements because you generally don’t post links, and dispute your analysis of various sets of facts. Your posts are littered with adhominons (ad hominem) My posts are not littered with them. Some posts have them placed in their content. This entire post of yours is an ad hominem and a display of your juvenile thought process. - a juvenile display of your thought process. You have almost no threads you have started of substance, Almost no threads of substance? How about none? Another thing you didn’t check out yourself and just guessed at. Take a vote and see how many of your threads have substance. but somehow you are compelled Somehow compelled? Sorry bud, I read them all. to read my own threads, all the while complaining about how I am wasting your time I have complained several times out of a hundred plus posts.. The one thread you recently started was so lame, nobody read it or followed up with postings. Your lack of analytical ability pops up again. It was a joke. Literally. What kind of meaningful reply do you feel compelled to make? None is expected. Since replies are really what determine the total number of views, a post that has no replies will have a lower number of views. The fact that you, of all people, read the post shows it wasn’t ignored. Whether serious minded people believed the post was a waste of time or not is moot. Because serious minded people don’t read jokes twice That is what serious minded people do when they believe posts are a waste of time; they ignore your thread. Did you notice the subject of the joke? It shows how 70+ games of golf doesn’t equal 1020 days out of 2920 on vacation at the ranch, Camp David, or your parents.

You think you are hoovering over the center of the universe (your words)My words? From where? You’re lying. Prove you are not so I get the over -inflated opinion you hold of yourself and your own intellect. In short you are a shallow Hal. Sorry CharlieOn campus you probably thought you were the big swinging dick; but now, your (you’re) a technical advisor. Sorry, was never really on campus. I think you just see the self-confident demeanor of someone who has made their own life, from the Airborne at Ft. Bragg, to raising a family, putting 3 kids through school (youngest just graduated from law school), 25 years as an Equip. Eng, and 10 years as an instructor (I don’t advise, which implies a choice on your part. I instruct which means if you do something a different way than I tell you and damage a $14 million machine that measures it’s down time at @$650 a minute, at that point I’ll advise. I’ll advise you to get your resume current.) Over-inflated opinion? No, just about right. I mostly know what I don’t know. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Any questions?

Looks like it's time to go buy some gold....

For Social Security Payments to stop, Obama has to explicitly order they be stopped. They happen automatically, because there's no mechanism every month for the person who runs the Direct Deposits to call the Treasury and get the pay run ok'ed.

The Treasury isn't a conventional bank account. It's an administrative exercise. Obama in theory could just order expenditures continue as normal, because all the Treasury would have to do is just create a bunch of electronic transactions. It's not like Little Timmy can go down to a teller, or open up a big wall safe and see billions in cash sitting on a table.

Obama is creating a crisis where none exists. So while not sending Granny's Unconstitutional Social Security deposit...he's spending Billions dropping bombs on Libyan camels, and sending Michelle off on vacation...

What he should be doing....furloughing non-essential personnel (with no make up pay later), cancelling standing contracts, or at least suspending them, negotiate deferred interest payments with larger bondholders, stop new applications for benefits, close national parks, institute a true pay freeze and hiring freeze, stop travel by government officials which is non-essential. He only needs to reduce cash flow by 34% (which is a lot, but not impossible in the short term).

But...we'll see a scenario where maximum pain will be inflicted by picking winners and losers, like stopping payments to Granny, stopping checks for military personnel, stopping all benefit payments. Just so he can get the upper hand on the Republicans.

But...we'll see a scenario where maximum pain will be inflicted by picking winners and losers, like stopping payments to Granny, stopping checks for military personnel, stopping all benefit payments. Just so he can get the upper hand on the Republicans. Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_898192.html

For Social Security Payments to stop, Obama has to explicitly order they be stopped.

Obama is creating a crisis where none exists.

What he should be doing....furloughing non-essential personnel (with no make up pay later), cancelling standing contracts, or at least suspending them, negotiate deferred interest payments with larger bondholders, stop new applications for benefits, close national parks, institute a true pay freeze and hiring freeze, stop travel by government officials which is non-essential. He only needs to reduce cash flow by 34% (which is a lot, but not impossible in the short term).
Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

As to your position on Social Security, do you have any cite to any law that supports what you claim? Here is a real discussion that actually cites the law that casts grave doubt on your claims:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...yRBI_blog.html

Finally, as to you magic scenario that the Executive branch pay some people who are owed money and not pay others, where do you see any Constitutional authority for a President to obey some laws, but not others? If the law says that person x is entitled to a Social Security check and person y is entitled to an agricultural subsidy, can the President just decide to obey one law and ignore the other? Do you think that is consistent with either the role of the Presidency generally, or the Equal Protection Clause specifically?

Suppose he decides to pay Social Security benefits only to those who voted in the Democratic primary? Or to those who don't have an independent income? Can he do that? Last I heard, a President couldn't pick and choose which laws to obey because we're a nation of laws, not of men.

Can he choose to pay individual bond holders, but not corporate bond holders? Americans, but not those bond holders who reside abroad? Don't you think those acts would violate the Equal Protection Clause?

What authority do you have that says the persons, w, x, y, and z are entitled under the law to receive payments of various sorts, but that the President can unilaterally, and without the authorization of Congress, decide who to pay and who not to pay?