Mike S

distantly related to Jesse James and less distantly to a Luftwaffe pilot.

The difference is, I am blood relatives of the above. On the other hand, Joe is a "close relative" of someone who's son married into the Keating family?

Sure, that makes him a fraud.


Mike S

Mike S

in the yellow pages in any state, yet we have offices in three.

We are not registered to vote in IL, either, where we live part of the year and have a home.

I would have asked Obama the same question, and I am in no way related to the McCain campaign other than I will be voting for him.

Whether or not Joe (or I) could afford to buy the business legally depends on his credit, his family wealth, his savings, if he won the lottery, etc. How any private person pays for a business is only the concern of the IRS and the law, if he does it illegally.

Nothing written about him is out of the norm or makes him a fraud. It's really too bad that these stories by many left wing blogs don't take the law and the facts into consideration.

Others are concerned whether Joe has a plumbing license. What does this have to do with whom he votes for? Clinton lied under oath, smoked pot and cheated on his wife and the liberal blogs didn't care about these issues as they were"unrelated" to his job.

Why the difference? If Joe is violating the law in being a plumber sans license, he deserves to be busted for it and due to the attention he brought himself, he likely will. But his question is valid and the real "ding, ding, ding" here was Obama's answer about spreading wealth around, hence the attempt to damage the image of the guy who brought out an unpopular view of Obama;s.



Mike S

Mike S

Are you only concerned with yourself? Not a very liberal or utilitarian view.

Mike S

How will taking money out of the corporations and wealthy of the US reduce unemployment, lower costs, increase income and raise the economy.

My main business, Sideline Sports Photography, is exactly the average small business they talk about.

If I have my taxes raised and my write-offs reduced, I will very likely eliminate one job within our Chicago office. I will have less money to invest, I will buy far less diesel (over $100,000 this past year), not reinvest in trucks/trailers or other gear at the same rate, I will not buy a new home soon as I plan to, I will not travel as much on business or vacation, I will go out to dinner less and so much more. I will also be likely forced to raise my prices as my costs will go up.

How my spending six figures less per year +, investing less, employing less people and not reinvesting in my business, while raising my prices is going to make the economy boom, I do not get.

Buying fewer vehicles, staying at less hotels, eating at less restaurants, buy less property, investing less and laying off employees due to having less liquidity. Sounds like a great plan to get us out of a recession.


Mike S

Mike S

ourselves with Obama's proposals.

Are you willing to disclose your net income on a public forum?

Additionally, I own more than one business, as you are likely aware. Many here know I own a driver representation business which now has many drivers of significant income.

I am not sure what my companies income have to do with my post.

My income justifies homes in two states, our toter/stacker, all our vehicles and our lifestyle.

Mike S

Mike S

adding in the second business. We remain at 38%+, if my memory serves me right for April 15.

When you consider sales tax, corporate tax, self employment (leslie), FICA, fuel tax (paid $18,500+ this past year), property tax, etc as well as things such as road tolls (paid $6,400+ this past year), car registration, dog licenses, I paid well over 50% this year.

Interestingly, I have no formal photography training other than a photo 101 course my senior year in college to learn darkroom.

I have degrees in business and accounting. Before I opened my own business in 1993, I worked for Arlington International (now Arlington Park) as the lead accountant for their OTB division.

I sincerely agree that most people do not always recognize the difference between net, gross or adjusted. I thankfully, or sadly come tax time, I do.

Mike S

allroad'Ed now

He said he'll probably gross 600,00 this year so he's rich, right? Let's run down the expenses:
First he pays 2 full time employees 100, 000 between them
Insurance and FICA for them another 25000
Then he has painters and other subs- another 50,000
Material costs for the work he does- 250,000
His trucks, equipment etc- 50,000

So he's left with a personal income of 125,000 right? Not even close. He figures by the time he pays the Obama tax, he'll end up with a lower personal income than his two employees. So he'll probably lay one off, and just work longer hours himself to make up the slack. Or he won't hire subs and have his own people do the painting and drywall. But either way, there's some people without work. This is how we're supposed to fix the economy?

skabaru

I have no interest in discussing politics here and now with you. I have made up my mind and I am voting for Obama based on his overall platform as well as McCain's platform.

Like I won't be able to convince you that god doesn't exist you won't be able to convince me McCain should be president.

I think the best thing would be to post why you think McCain is the best candidate using as much pro McCain stuff as possible.

Mike S

well.

Obama wants 35-40% of anyone's profits on the sale of their home (purchase price vs sale price).

If the guy has a million dollar home be built for $400,000, he gets to pay Barrack $240K for building, maintaining, living in the home. Niiiiiice.

Additionally, you are working off Barrack's promises, not what he may end up doing.

Lastly, and you may not know this as you haven't lived here that long (I think), but most tax code takes a while to come into effect. It's not likely that Barrack will get his plans through fast.

And didn't you state during the 2004 election that you were able to vote (or did vote, don't remember) in the US and Canadian elections? Thought you said that here on AW. May be wrong.


Mike S

Mike S

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I was simply questioning your statement, as I know you are a very world-aware, utilitarian person. I didn't realize that view ceased at a certain tax bracket, which is what you seemed to be representing,

I do not care who you vote for nor do I want to convince you to change. I've never told anyone they shouldn't vote for Obama or to vote for McCain.

As per the tax situation, I think you'd feel differently if you were in the tax bracket where Barrack (or anyone) took hundreds of thousands of $'s out of your pocket on an annual basis, just because you crossed a magic number of income.

I am curious why you (and many others) think it's the fair/right for the govt to take a large percentage of one's hard work, sweat, tears, risk and brain power and transfer it to others in the form of checks or services? I took the risk and cost in starting my business. i put all my time, effort and hard work into it. Yet I am to work as hard as I do to put my money in someone else's hands?

It seems that democrats are all about freedoms, lack of invasion of rights, lack of invasion of privacy, allowing people to live their own lives as they wish, etc. But when it comes to money, once you hit some magical number, it's ok to take a large percentage of one's income (take over 55%+ when all is considered) and just hand it to others. Not all those others are misfortunate, uneducated, hard working people. Regardless, where is it an in natural law that one has the right to own a home, a car, have a job, have healthcare, etc?

You may not consider yourself rich, but the homeless guy down the street who sees you drive by in your Audi or other cars, sees you go into your home, or if they could see the stuff you own, would certainly see you as such.

As you might not answer the above, I'd like you to answer this one question for me:

What if a candidate from either party got elected and put you into a 50%+ income tax situation, calling your level "rich". Would you go along happily and live a much lessor lifesyle, barely able to feed your child, not able to save for college, not able to take your car to DE's and Auto-X's, not able to dine out, not able to travel, keeping you from buying the computers you need, etc? Would you accept this? Well at what point does is that level set (the rich level) and who decides?

You would effectively have your lifestyle, one you've worked so hard for (and you have, I know), your dreams, your aspirations all knocked way down by a president, all for someone else to get the money you earned handed to them due to nothing but their income level?

Does that sound fair? Pure income redistribution?

That's what happens to many in this world due to tax structure.


On a side note, I find it interesting that not one person, not one, in four posts on AW over two months, can explain how higher taxation of those who employ, invest and purchase (driving the economy) is going to help this economy. How will the businesses of America laying people off, investing less, taking their plants and operations outside of America, etc help this country? Look up the economy during the Carter years. 70% tax rate, 25% APR, etc.

Not one person can explain how this will work. The reason? It won't. It defies logic. You can't tax people who don't have capital gains for them. You can't take real estate gains that aren't there. You can't tax income and business taken outside the US. Best yet, whatever taxes that are placed on businesses will be passed on down to the consumer. It's really that simple.

And this will help how?

Mike S