Obama's American divide~

apple0154 said:
They use a portion of the income to pay for labor and keep the rest. That's why a plumbing company will charge $80/hr or $90/hr for the services of a plumber but pay the actual plumber $30/hr. After paying benefits and expenses they pocket the rest.
Click to expand...
Again, what is your point? If the laborer wants to make $90/hr they can always go independent - and take on the expenses of running a business, buying all the specialized tools and plumbing parts a plumber needs, buy a work truck (along with insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.) to haul them in, liability insurance for if they screw something up, advertising to gain a client base, and all the other items essential to running one's own business. Then they can charge their clients $90/hr. And, all too often, they'll find out that they won't be making much more than the $30/hr plus benefits they were making as a waged employee. But hey, everyone needs to go out and create their own work, so rid the world of the evils of making money off the labors of other people.
 
apple0154 said:
They use a portion of the income to pay for labor and keep the rest. That's why a plumbing company will charge $80/hr or $90/hr for the services of a plumber but pay the actual plumber $30/hr. After paying benefits and expenses they pocket the rest.
Click to expand...

they use a portion to pay for labor......they use a portion to pay for benefits......they use a portion to pay for taxes......they use a portion to pay for machinery and tools......they use a portion to pay for the building/vehicles used in the business.....and they use a portion to pay for their own labor in organizing and managing.....and yes, they keep the rest.......but, unless someone were willing and able to do that, there wouldn't be anyone to pay for the labor.......
 
Good Luck said:
Again, what is your point? If the laborer wants to make $90/hr they can always go independent - and take on the expenses of running a business, buying all the specialized tools and plumbing parts a plumber needs, buy a work truck (along with insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.) to haul them in, liability insurance for if they screw something up, advertising to gain a client base, and all the other items essential to running one's own business. Then they can charge their clients $90/hr. And, all too often, they'll find out that they won't be making much more than the $30/hr plus benefits they were making as a waged employee. But hey, everyone needs to go out and create their own work, so rid the world of the evils of making money off the labors of other people.
Click to expand...

People like apple do not understand the difference between profits and profit margins. Neither can they appreciate the risk involved in running a company or the hard work to make one successful.
 
apple0154 said:
If the citizens want change they vote the party out.

Survey after survey taken in a number of Northern European countries show that people prefer their government organize services that the vast majority of citizens require. From daycare to medical, from public transport to welfare, the citizens desire an organized and efficient lifestyle.

How many communities (besides where Damocles lives) have to get together to decide when and who will repair the street? Or the sewer or water or street lamps, etc. Governments, whether local or State or Federal, look after things we all require allowing us more time and more freedom to do other things.
Click to expand...

No one I know has a problem with "limited government" apple. Basic services are not equal to a nanny state of mommy and daddy or of the tyrant taxing us beyond reason.
 
Good Luck said:
Of COURSE some people "make their income off the labor of others". Every business which is not run 100% by the owners (probably 90%+, from the local grocer who hires a few cashiers to the building contractor who hires carpenters, masons, etc, to General Motors Corporation who employs so many workers the government has made the tax payer responsible for keeping them from going bankrupt - oh, wait, they DID go bankrupt anyway) derives its income from the labor of those who are employed by said business. So what is your point? Most of those who are labeled wealthy by the whiny socialist twits own businesses. Most of them work as hard, if not harder, at running their businesses. So what?

Did you have a point for making this rather overly-obvious statement? Are you trying to imply that it is somehow WRONG for people to make their income off the labor of others? Or did you make that statement just to state the obvious. Like "down" is the direction toward the center of mass of a large gravitational body?
Click to expand...

SmarterThanYou asked in msg 5,
ever wonder why there's such a divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy?
Click to expand...

I replied in msg 7,
Once an individual reaches a certain point, obtains a certain degree of wealth, they make their income off the labor of others.
Click to expand...

In msg 4 Ice Dancer wrote,
Without the wealthy there would be no government to provide for the lazy; the incompetent; or the truly needy.
Click to expand...

So, I have two points. The first is in response to the "why" asked by STY. The reason there is such a divide is the wealthy are making money off the labor of others. The person making $500k/yr is not producing 10 times as much as the person making $50k/yr.

The second reason is in regards to ID's comment. The truth is without the labor of others enabling one to become wealthy there would be no wealthy and, therefore, no government to provide for the lazy; the incompetent; or the truly needy. [/QUOTE]

To conclude, it's obvious my statement was not "overly-obvious", at least to you, as you had difficulty comprehending it.
 
Good Luck said:
Again, what is your point? If the laborer wants to make $90/hr they can always go independent - and take on the expenses of running a business, buying all the specialized tools and plumbing parts a plumber needs, buy a work truck (along with insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.) to haul them in, liability insurance for if they screw something up, advertising to gain a client base, and all the other items essential to running one's own business. Then they can charge their clients $90/hr. And, all too often, they'll find out that they won't be making much more than the $30/hr plus benefits they were making as a waged employee. But hey, everyone needs to go out and create their own work, so rid the world of the evils of making money off the labors of other people.
Click to expand...

My point? Please refer to msg. #26.
 
Ice Dancer said:
People like apple do not understand the difference between profits and profit margins. Neither can they appreciate the risk involved in running a company or the hard work to make one successful.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned I am half owner of a small business. I do realize the time and effort involved but that does not change the fact I make money off the labor of others. While I spent a total of 2-1/2 hours this weekend (that includes Friday, Saturday and Sunday) at the business the revenue I received is in no way proportional to the "labor" I expended.

As for the risks involved small businesses have limited liability. The financial penalty for bankruptcy, total loss, is far less than the financial gain one would realize from success.

The thing that bothers me is the attitude that small business owners are suffering. If running a small business was such a "chore" people wouldn't open a small business.

The question we need to ask is, "How many small business owners make less than if they worked for someone else?" Obviously the ones that go bankrupt but the owner of any running small business is making more than if he/she was an employee. People get grants to open small businesses, grants supplied from the tax dollars of regular workers. If/when a small business is successful shouldn't the person who was helped by government grants pay additional taxes?
 
apple0154 said:
I think I mentioned I am half owner of a small business. I do realize the time and effort involved but that does not change the fact I make money off the labor of others. While I spent a total of 2-1/2 hours this weekend (that includes Friday, Saturday and Sunday) at the business the revenue I received is in no way proportional to the "labor" I expended.

As for the risks involved small businesses have limited liability. The financial penalty for bankruptcy, total loss, is far less than the financial gain one would realize from success.

The thing that bothers me is the attitude that small business owners are suffering. If running a small business was such a "chore" people wouldn't open a small business.

The question we need to ask is, "How many small business owners make less than if they worked for someone else?" Obviously the ones that go bankrupt but the owner of any running small business is making more than if he/she was an employee. People get grants to open small businesses, grants supplied from the tax dollars of regular workers. If/when a small business is successful shouldn't the person who was helped by government grants pay additional taxes?
Click to expand...

Only 4% of small businesses fall into the top category. And even after that, the first 250k is taxed at the lower rates. You have to be making a significant amount of money to be paying mostly the top rate (after which it's a bit absurd to call it a "small business"). And it's only on profits - if they chose to reinvest into their business, rather than raising their own salary, that money wouldn't be taxed. The tax doesn't do anything to affect the actual running of the business at all, only the profits the owners choose to scrape out of it and use for their own personal reasons. If anything, a higher tax here helps the economy by providing a disincentive for them to raise their own salary to such absurd levels rather than to reinvest the money in their business.
 
Good Luck said:
Again, what is your point? If the laborer wants to make $90/hr they can always go independent - and take on the expenses of running a business, buying all the specialized tools and plumbing parts a plumber needs, buy a work truck (along with insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.) to haul them in, liability insurance for if they screw something up, advertising to gain a client base, and all the other items essential to running one's own business.
Click to expand...

You have just explained perfectly the market failure that causes workers to be unable to extract anywhere near the true value of their work in salary. The free market isn't primarily based off of effort, it's based off of luck. It's based off of being first. After that, the first have such a tremendous advantage that practically no one else can hope to compete. And then they pass it on to their children, and we have monarchy all over again.
 
Ice Dancer said:
They are not doing quite well Apple...they are failing. You want the government to act like a mommy and a daddy as well as a tyrant. Take whatever money they want from an individual via taxation (the tyrant) then distribute as they see best (mommy and daddy).
Click to expand...

Actually almost all of our current government goes towards providing for the military and the elderly.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No one I know has a problem with "limited government" apple. Basic services are not equal to a nanny state of mommy and daddy or of the tyrant taxing us beyond reason.
Click to expand...

The problem is on what the tax dollars are spent. An over-sized military does not benefit the average citizen nor do pet projects. Entitlements, from SS to welfare to medical care, should be the priority. How can anyone justify spending $60,000 on a park statue while someone is being denied a $60,000 operation due to insufficient funds? How can anyone be generous to others knowing they may run out of money for a needed medical procedure?

When people are unsure of being able to provide basic necessities in the future is it any wonder they try to grab all the money they can? If a person knows they have to lose everything and be on the street before government will help them can we blame them for being tight-fisted when it comes to paying taxes and helping others?

Through advances in technology we can look after everyone. That doesn't mean offering a luxury lifestyle but it does mean ensuring every citizen the government will be there to help in the time of need.

As I mentioned previously most citizens in what we consider Socialist countries are happy with the arrangement. They know a medical emergency or a job loss will not result in total financial destruction. Until that cloud is removed, that ever-hanging threat is dealt with, can we expect people to freely help others?

Ideas like putting the responsibility of pensions back into the hands of individuals adds to the problem. The more things individuals are responsible for, the less things they can count on the government to provide, the less likely they are to help others. It's only natural.

There are some basic changes that have to be made and Obama made a good first step with ObamaCare.

We can't expect people to think along the lines of "we're all in this together" when they know there's no "together".
 
Liberty said:
"What" means, "I'm confused about your statement".
Click to expand...

My statement was, "Once an individual reaches a certain point, obtains a certain degree of wealth, they make their income off the labor of others."

Did my subsequent posts clear that up?
 
apple0154 said:
My statement was, "Once an individual reaches a certain point, obtains a certain degree of wealth, they make their income off the labor of others."

Did my subsequent posts clear that up?
Click to expand...

I guess so,,,,

Would that be like the government taking money out of my income?
 
apple0154 said:
If the citizens want change they vote the party out.

Survey after survey taken in a number of Northern European countries show that people prefer their government organize services that the vast majority of citizens require. From daycare to medical, from public transport to welfare, the citizens desire an organized and efficient lifestyle.

How many communities (besides where Damocles lives) have to get together to decide when and who will repair the street? Or the sewer or water or street lamps, etc. Governments, whether local or State or Federal, look after things we all require allowing us more time and more freedom to do other things.
Click to expand...

That must be why their governments are failing, economically, and the citizens are rioting over the cuts to their "entitlements".
 
apple0154 said:
They use a portion of the income to pay for labor and keep the rest. That's why a plumbing company will charge $80/hr or $90/hr for the services of a plumber but pay the actual plumber $30/hr. After paying benefits and expenses they pocket the rest.
Click to expand...

You're right; they should make the plumber be an independent contractor, charge him for the use of the business name, let him find his own benefits (insurance and such), and then charge him for any space and equipment he uses.
Of course the plumber can set his own rate and if he has to charge more then anyone else and gets less customersl well, that's just the fault of the plumber.
 
apple0154 said:
I think I mentioned I am half owner of a small business. I do realize the time and effort involved but that does not change the fact I make money off the labor of others. While I spent a total of 2-1/2 hours this weekend (that includes Friday, Saturday and Sunday) at the business the revenue I received is in no way proportional to the "labor" I expended.

As for the risks involved small businesses have limited liability. The financial penalty for bankruptcy, total loss, is far less than the financial gain one would realize from success.

The thing that bothers me is the attitude that small business owners are suffering. If running a small business was such a "chore" people wouldn't open a small business.

The question we need to ask is, "How many small business owners make less than if they worked for someone else?" Obviously the ones that go bankrupt but the owner of any running small business is making more than if he/she was an employee. People get grants to open small businesses, grants supplied from the tax dollars of regular workers. If/when a small business is successful shouldn't the person who was helped by government grants pay additional taxes?
Click to expand...

Then give the extra money back, if it makes you feel so uncomfortable. Just spread it among the employees.

I have a friend who runs a small business. He has 11 "private contractors" working for him, among the two shops.
He takes 50% of what they earn; but then, he pays for all the rent, electrical, telephone(s), cable, business requirements, shared supplies, etc.
Some weeks he makes big bucks and some weeks he makes very little. Sometimes just barely covering his expenses.
But and heres the big but; he pays these expenses when they make money and when they don't.

He put his entire retirement into this venture and started his first shop. He then opened a second one and is planning on possibly opening a third, this coming fall.

He is at his shop(s), every day. HIs employees take two days off a week; but he usually ends up working 7 days a week.
In the past year, he's probably taken off a total of 12 days. That figures into around 1 day a month.

According to your theory; if he becomes successful, he has no right to becoming "rich" and passing on his money to his children. By the way; the reason he's doing this, is to give his children something so they won't have to work so hard.
What a uncaring and cruel person he is; according to your assertions.
 
Obama is correct about this country being divided into two classes.....you've got the "now have less" group and you've got the "now have less but still have something left" group......Obama is intent on removing the differences between them.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top