There is no contempt at all, but to suggest that people will stop working because they are taxed is just silly.

Why in the world would someone earn themselves into a higher bracket and get nothing in return? Kind of a stupid concept, yet this administration seems to think it's a great idea. People WILL stop working as hard if they're only going to be punished for their success. It's not hard to figure out.

Where was the government takeover in the compromise bill? That is such hooey and is only a talking point to make people opposed to the bill. There was no public option and no single payer option so where was/is the takeover?

 

One of the issues that people keep talking about is selling insurance over state lines, well, if that lowers costs that has to be some nationwide standards, otherwise companies flock to the state with the lowest standards and loosest coverage regulations and they sell from there. Which helps no one in this process.

 

And then there is the issue with forcing everyone to buy it, government infringement you say, well if you take off the pre-existing rules so companies have to cover everybody, then there are many people who will not get coverage until they have said condition, which is a horrible business proposition. So there are two things you have to have to make this work.

1. National minimal standards so that people are selling real insurance if they do it across state lines

2. Mandate that everyone has it.

 

Those are the two things that lead everybody to talk about a govt takeover, but it is simple that you can't have real reform if you don't have these two things.

 

AND, you cannot have a good economic recovery if you don't get the exploding costs of health insurance under control.

The idea of actual "compromise" in that bill just because Pelosi, Reid and company put "compromise" in its name is hilarious. The fact that there are people who actually believe it when they have no idea of the details and content of the bill is troubling. You can trust your life and future on politicians and government if you want to do so. I don't trust too much of either.

 

As far as hooey, Charles Rangel (who has urged higher taxes for decades but has chronically schemed to avoid paying them) has stated that getting a bill in place without the single payer or public option may be necessary just to get the plan going and they would be added in later. Not a bad strategy... since when has a government program been reduced or eliminated once it has been implemented?

 

They just grow and grow and grow...

Why in the world would someone earn themselves into a higher bracket and get nothing in return? Kind of a stupid concept, yet this administration seems to think it's a great idea. People WILL stop working as hard if they're only going to be punished for their success. It's not hard to figure out.

Speak for yourself RTS , I enjoyed every raise that I received and earned . If it put me in a higher tax bracket so be it . I certainly didn't slack off in my work ethic because of it or turn any of them down because of the possibility of being in a higher tax bracket . Now that's a cynical , stupid and un-American concept !!

Edited February 21, 201016 yr by KyTmcNcc

Speak for yourself RTS , I enjoyed every raise that I recieved and earned . If it put me in a higher tax bracket so be it . I certainly didn't slack off in my work ethic because of it or turn any of them down because of the possibility of being in a higher tax bracket . Now that's a stupid concept !!

 

I'll raise my hand in support of your post KyT. Personally, I was a person that once upon a time, was eligible for the EIC. I was a single mom with 2 kids under 5 making 5.25 an hour. What a joy those days were financially. :lol: Daycare for 2 kids, per week, during that time was about $150/week. You do the math. :lol: I worked my way up and I'm pretty sure I'm on the lower end of the middle class sale at this point. I've never been "upset" with the fact that I had to pay more taxes, except the year that I worked almost full time at my second job. But, in after help from Watusi, I learned I had no one to blame but myself for that $3000 I thought I owed. I didn't file the right status, so I killed myself in filing.

 

When I was eligible for the EIC, I can tell you right now that I would rather have been earning more money throughout the year. That once a year little "bonus" sure didn't help in the day to day expenses.

 

There will always be some who abuse the "system", but you can in no way characterize the entire lower-income bracket as slackers who have no desire to succeed, just as you can't characterize everyone on unemployment as unwilling to work, or everyone who receives welfare of various sorts as unwilling to work or succeed.

FB is talking about the people who drive the economy. The risk takers who put everything they own into an idea and then work 80 hours a week to grow it into a successful business. They will certainly be less motivated at higher tax brackets. Where's the risk in accepting a raise?

 

Many people who work in payroll can tell you a story of people turning down overtime because they thought it wasn't worth it because of the additional tax withholding.

FB is talking about the people who drive the economy. The risk takers who put everything they own into an idea and then work 80 hours a week to grow it into a successful business. They will certainly be less motivated at higher tax brackets. Where's the risk in accepting a raise?

 

Many people who work in payroll can tell you a story of people turning down overtime because they thought it wasn't worth it because of the additional tax withholding.

Loved the Overtime especially in the early years when it was Double-time . Hard work but I earned every penny of it !! I helped drive the economy a lot then .:thumb: later it was 1 -1/2 that was allright too.

FB is talking about the people who drive the economy. The risk takers who put everything they own into an idea and then work 80 hours a week to grow it into a successful business. They will certainly be less motivated at higher tax brackets. Where's the risk in accepting a raise?

 

Many people who work in payroll can tell you a story of people turning down overtime because they thought it wasn't worth it because of the additional tax withholding.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face !!!!:eyeonyou:

FB is talking about the people who drive the economy. The risk takers who put everything they own into an idea and then work 80 hours a week to grow it into a successful business. They will certainly be less motivated at higher tax brackets. Where's the risk in accepting a raise?

And what about the people who work just as hard working FOR someone, and make the business owner a success? You think the only people who put effort into an enterprise are the owners? You can't dispute that the "risk takers" are only the owners of the business. Those they employ have to do their jobs well, as well. They take a risk working for someone who is trying to grow a successful business. I love how the only people who get credit for a business's success here are those who own the business.

 

Many people who work in payroll can tell you a story of people turning down overtime because they thought it wasn't worth it because of the additional tax withholding.

 

I've worked in many capacities throughout my career, including as a payroll clerk, and a department manager. I personally have NEVER seen anyone turn down OT for the reason you state. I've seen MUCH more incidence of companies who hire part time positions to avoid OT because they don't have to offer benefits to part-timers. I've had friends who work for Ford BECAUSE they were guaranteed OT. I've had other friends who had to take on part time jobs because their company eliminated OT.

 

Is there a person here and there that will turn down OT because it will affect their taxes? Maybe. But most people working hourly are much more concerned with tomorrow than next April. They need the money now, not after they file their taxes.

And what about the people who work just as hard working FOR someone, and make the business owner a success? You think the only people who put effort into an enterprise are the owners? You can't dispute that the "risk takers" are only the owners of the business. Those they employ have to do their jobs well, as well. They take a risk working for someone who is trying to grow a successful business. I love how the only people who get credit for a business's success here are those who own the business.

 

 

 

I've worked in many capacities throughout my career, including as a payroll clerk, and a department manager. I personally have NEVER seen anyone turn down OT for the reason you state. I've seen MUCH more incidence of companies who hire part time positions to avoid OT because they don't have to offer benefits to part-timers. I've had friends who work for Ford BECAUSE they were guaranteed OT. I've had other friends who had to take on part time jobs because their company eliminated OT.

 

Is there a person here and there that will turn down OT because it will affect their taxes? Maybe. But most people working hourly are much more concerned with tomorrow than next April. They need the money now, not after they file their taxes.

You tell em Tiger !!:ylsuper::ylsuper::ylsuper: or should I say Rocky!!

Edited February 21, 201016 yr by KyTmcNcc

The only reason that I EVER turned down overtime was to be somewhere with my family doing that was important to my wife or kids .

Speak for yourself RTS , I enjoyed every raise that I received and earned . If it put me in a higher tax bracket so be it . I certainly didn't slack off in my work ethic because of it or turn any of them down because of the possibility of being in a higher tax bracket . Now that's a cynical , stupid and un-American concept !!

You totally misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about what these goof-balls of today want to do. They want to totally punish success. I worked a ton of overtime and enjoyed every penny I made as well as you did, but they didn't want to take the vast majority of my income and give it to someone else. That's the ridiculous, absolutely un-American and downright criminal concept I'm talking about.

Something else you don't seem to understand is that if this administration continues on it's war with the upper class (the ones who create jobs and do the hiring), the middle and lower class are going to suffer greatly. But by all means, feel free to support the concept of class envy, I'm sure it'll really help out the job market.

I'll raise my hand in support of your post KyT. Personally, I was a person that once upon a time, was eligible for the EIC. I was a single mom with 2 kids under 5 making 5.25 an hour. What a joy those days were financially. :lol: Daycare for 2 kids, per week, during that time was about $150/week. You do the math. :lol: I worked my way up and I'm pretty sure I'm on the lower end of the middle class sale at this point. I've never been "upset" with the fact that I had to pay more taxes, except the year that I worked almost full time at my second job. But, in after help from Watusi, I learned I had no one to blame but myself for that $3000 I thought I owed. I didn't file the right status, so I killed myself in filing.

 

When I was eligible for the EIC, I can tell you right now that I would rather have been earning more money throughout the year. That once a year little "bonus" sure didn't help in the day to day expenses.

 

There will always be some who abuse the "system", but you can in no way characterize the entire lower-income bracket as slackers who have no desire to succeed, just as you can't characterize everyone on unemployment as unwilling to work, or everyone who receives welfare of various sorts as unwilling to work or succeed.

I see you totally misunderstood as well.

Speak for yourself RTS , I enjoyed every raise that I received and earned . If it put me in a higher tax bracket so be it . I certainly didn't slack off in my work ethic because of it or turn any of them down because of the possibility of being in a higher tax bracket . Now that's a cynical , stupid and un-American concept !!

 

I concur.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face !!!!:eyeonyou:

 

Happens every day. Talk to any HR person.

And what about the people who work just as hard working FOR someone, and make the business owner a success? You think the only people who put effort into an enterprise are the owners? You can't dispute that the "risk takers" are only the owners of the business. Those they employ have to do their jobs well, as well. They take a risk working for someone who is trying to grow a successful business. I love how the only people who get credit for a business's success here are those who own the business.

 

 

 

I've worked in many capacities throughout my career, including as a payroll clerk, and a department manager. I personally have NEVER seen anyone turn down OT for the reason you state. I've seen MUCH more incidence of companies who hire part time positions to avoid OT because they don't have to offer benefits to part-timers. I've had friends who work for Ford BECAUSE they were guaranteed OT. I've had other friends who had to take on part time jobs because their company eliminated OT.

 

Is there a person here and there that will turn down OT because it will affect their taxes? Maybe. But most people working hourly are much more concerned with tomorrow than next April. They need the money now, not after they file their taxes.

You miss his point as well. Jobs DON'T have to stay in this country nor do they HAVE to pay well. Punish those that work their tail off (and yes, they worked much harder then those that work for them) and it won't be long until you see those that work for them lose their jobs, get their pay scaled back or whatever the owner has to do to recoup what he's lost because of the stupid notion that because he or she is successful, the majority of their money must be taken from them and given to someone else.