A Comprehsive List Of New Taxes

[bonnie]

Quote:

Whether or not an employee can take c are of his or her own benefit package is rather academic because they don't do so. There are janitors working earning $12/hour with a full benefit package that provide well for their families and car salesmen earning $50K/year with no benefit package that cannot fit health insurance into their personal budget. The reasons for that are academic. The reality is that is real for thousands of Americans. Pulling out the self-reliance whip and thinking we can whip Americans into being responsible for themselves simply isn't going to work. If self-reliance was the answer we wouldn't be having the discussion we are having.

So the employer plays the part of parent,making sure a employee is taken care.

If a person earning 50K cannot take care of his family,TOUGH. He needs a serious wakeup call.

If self-reliance was the answer we wouldn't be having the discussion we are having.

There is no reason to be self reliant. Bet if they got hungry enough they would take a second look at their own conduct

Quote:

I favor the "Pay-Or-Pay" legislation that would mandate employers to pay for at least 75% of an employee's health-care insurance and 67% of their family's insurance OR be fined in an amount greater than the cost of the insurance. That will go a long way in bringing down the cost of insurance.

I am glad this has worked well for you in the "business you are running"

Maybe the rest of small businesses are not run by someone as moral or christian as you. I think you said if a business owner was moral and christian they would do as you say or do

Having employer provided insurance has done nothing to lower costs. Seems they have been going up and up.

I also favor tort reform and capping the award for medical mal-practice. However in so doing doctors found guilty of mal-practice must be penalized by having their medical license suspended for a period of time so that it never becomes more affordable to perform mal-practice that to do things right.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Having employer provided insurance has done nothing to lower costs.

That is because not all employers provide it. A mandate would change that.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Having employer provided insurance has done nothing to lower costs.

That is because not all employers provide it. A mandate would change that.

Simply isn't true. If the mandate demanded something a business could not afford,problem solved.The business goes belly up.

With the actual low number without insurance ,mandating business carry and pay 3/4 of insurance there is no way forcing the few small businesses would lower insurance rates.

Let the employee shoulder his own responsibility. No one is suggesting a sub standard wage.

A employer is not responsible for what a employee does with his earned income.Not his house payment,car payment,groceries for his children or his health insurance.

Let him use his 20.00 as he will. The employer does not have to serve as parent as well as employer.

Once you have been in the position to provide work for a number of employee's and all that goes with it,you might be in a position to cast a reflection on the morality or christianity of those actually in the trenches providing a livelihood for many.

Your own family many times being last or having to do without.

I would like to hear how you treated your employee's in a moral and christian manner as opposed to those greedy employer's that did not do as you did.

You may have been able to juggle your figures enough to come out paying your employee's generous compensation packages,a fair wage to lay claim to moral and christian. I would love to see some figures.

What you paid as salary per employee and the compensation package? How many were you able to do this for?

[Dr. Shane]

If the mandate demanded something a business could not afford,problem solved.The business goes belly up.

That would be a good thing. The weak business that shut down would be replaced with stronger businesses that could pay the workers an honest wage with honest benefits. The playing field would be level. Now, when I give my employees the benefits they deserve that puts me at a disadvantage against my competitors.

[bonnie]

Quote:

That would be a good thing. The weak business that shut down would be replaced with stronger businesses that could pay the workers an honest wage with honest benefits. The playing field would be level. Now, when I give my employees the benefits they deserve that puts me at a disadvantage against my competitors. [/quote']

The closing of businesses that have not had the opportunity or time in business to have the backing to weather this kind of economy is not a good thing. It will happen to many that have run their business in a responsible manner.

The closing of businesses that are closing because of not wishing to conduct business at a losing $$$ amount is definitely not a good thing,and there are many of those as well.

From what you said earlier moral and christian employer's would pay a fair wage and a generous compensation package. So what is stopping you?

You used the figures of 20.00 an hour as fair wage. 12.00 per hour in salary and the balance to provide this generous compensation package.

Either you are not a moral and christian employer or you cannot provide the generous compensation plan for your employee's. If you cannot provide what you consider moral and christian,quit being a employer and become a employee.

Otherwise your employee's should be happy with the pay of 12.00 per hour and the 8.00 in a compensation package.

Employer's that do not provide insurance are not what is preventing you from having a level playing field. Besides, it is simple,moral and christian employer's can and should provide a generous compensation package.

Even Obama has admitted to some pretty low numbers of chronically unisured. I would guess those without insurance

are not business owners.

Removing the illegal's(which is a joke),removing those that already qualify for medicaid and just don't sign up,removing the ones that are without insurance for a short time and those that just flat out don't want to pay,whittles the list to 20-25 million.Depending on whose figures you use.

Millions are already covered under the welfare system. Chips has been expanded to families with incomes upward of 70,000.00 If parents cannot provide insurance for their children on that,they don't deserve to have them. Medicare also covers millions

No one is stopping you from playing the moral,christian employer. You need to take less for your family,at times making them last to be paid,and do what you should for your employee's

[Guest]

Requiring employers to provide health care insurance would be no different than increasing the minimum wage. Health care insurance should be part of every compensation package just like Social Security, unemployment and workers' compensation is. It is simply being fair to the worker. As Jesus said, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

I know you say you're moderate, but I'm going to start calling you lefty. With your faith in big government to solve all our problems. Bigger gov't. is never a good idea. Wishing gov't had more control over things, to me is insane. All it takes is a little hindsight to see that they mess up everything they touch.

They have never taken over something and made it better. EVER.

I can't think of one example of something that got better after it fell into the hands of the gov't.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

Quote:

I know you say you're moderate, but I'm going to start calling you lefty. With your faith in big government to solve all our problems. Bigger gov't. is never a good idea. Wishing gov't had more control over things, to me is insane. All it takes is a little hindsight to see that they mess up everything they touch.

They have never taken over something and made it better. EVER.

I can't think of one example of something that got better after it fell into the hands of the gov't.

,

The playing field will be leveled beyond a doubt if Obama has his way. Not leveled higher for all,but lower for all.

[CyberGuy]

Bonnie many times the health care is part of the employment package. An employee accepts a lower wage in place of a health care package. My Step daughter accepted a lower wage in place of a generous health care package. I would dare say that we would all get more money if we did not get health care but I want health care and am willing to be paid less money if I have health care. So would a great many people.

As for SS and medicare I would dare say that if the employors and employees did not pay that tax that the employees wage would be higher. However employees tend to not put money away into retirement or not enough. As younger employees think nothing will happen to them and old age is decades away and why worry about that. Yes this is a sort of forced retirement plan. Social security only makes it so a person can live on a minimal stipend. Hardly enough to be rich but they can pay for food and utilities easy enough on it. Another forum of retirement income is neccessary to pay for rent or a mortgage.

So yes by accepting lower wages in place of a retirement and health care package many employees are in better shape when they retire. Even if that is forced on them by government regulations.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Bonnie many times the health care is part of the employment package. An employee accepts a lower wage in place of a health care package. My Step daughter accepted a lower wage in place of a generous health care package. I would dare say that we would all get more money if we did not get health care but I want health care and am willing to be paid less money if I have health care. So would a great many people.

I understand that as a small business along with most others in our family and extended family.

Again, all should be paid a fair wage. However Shane has made this a moral,christian issue.

The above says you and your step-daughter made a conscious choice. Shane is talking of a forced scenerio,whereby the government controls the benefit package a business must pay.

Quote:

As for SS and medicare I would dare say that if the employors and employees did not pay that tax that the employees wage would be higher. However employees tend to not put money away into retirement or not enough. As younger employees think nothing will happen to them and old age is decades away and why worry about that. Yes this is a sort of forced retirement plan. Social security only makes it so a person can live on a minimal stipend. Hardly enough to be rich but they can pay for food and utilities easy enough on it. Another forum of retirement income is neccessary to pay for rent or a mortgage.

The IRS knows when I file income tax whether I have any earned interest,it knows to take medicare premiums from our SS check without a employer,it knows to take out for prescription D. They could figure out quick enough if I am paying my taxes and insurance or not.

SS,like medicare is a slush fund for the government. Seems they lost the key to the little black box where they kept the money/

Quote:

So yes by accepting lower wages in place of a retirement and health care package many employees are in better shape when they retire. Even if that is forced on them by government regulations.

The topic was not whether a employee accepted lower wage/compensation instead of higher wage. Many of those that have been providing "compensation packages along with a fair wage" will no longer be able to do so or will simply decide enough is enough.

Shane now wants the government to set mandates that gives a retirement package he approves of.

I am not sure but I don't believe Shane has "employee's". I don't think he is the one that needs to meet payroll in some really tough times.

[bonnie]

Shane wants the government to level the playing field. That is not the business of government in a free society. It is the business of a socialist government.

It is up to the individual to obtain an education,to be motivated,to work sometimes 24/7 to start a business.

Requiring employers to provide health care insurance would be no different than increasing the minimum wage. Health care insurance should be part of every compensation package just like Social Security, unemployment and workers' compensation is. It is simply being fair to the worker. As Jesus said, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

For the government to enforce what they think is "the laborer is worthy of his hire" we are all going to lose.

Unemployment compensation should be paid by the employee. Nothing stopping them from depositing a systematic deposit to be a safety net if there is no work.

What makes an employer responsible for the economy and sufficient demand for his business?

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

This again is simply not true. It is not within Shane's playing field to determine who is christian or moral.

But we will soon have the government level the playing field for all. That is socialism

_________________________

[Guest]

Shane wants the government to level the playing field. That is not the business of government in a free society. It is the business of a socialist government.

It is up to the individual to obtain an education,to be motivated,to work sometimes 24/7 to start a business.

Requiring employers to provide health care insurance would be no different than increasing the minimum wage. Health care insurance should be part of every compensation package just like Social Security, unemployment and workers' compensation is. It is simply being fair to the worker. As Jesus said, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

For the government to enforce what they think is "the laborer is worthy of his hire" we are all going to lose.

Unemployment compensation should be paid by the employee. Nothing stopping them from depositing a systematic deposit to be a safety net if there is no work.

What makes an employer responsible for the economy and sufficient demand for his business?

The problem is that since this is not required today, we do not have a level playing field. Dedicated Christians and other moral people that want to do the right thing and be fair with their employees cannot do so and compete with others in their industry. This is especially true for small businesses. A government mandate would level the playing field.

This again is simply not true. It is not within Shane's playing field to determine who is christian or moral.

But we will soon have the government level the playing field for all. That is socialism

_________________________

That is excactly right.

[bonnie]

If as Shane and Cyberguy have said that a employee can accept a lessor wage,made up in compensation packages.there is no reason employer's cannot offer insurance and all the perks.

It is rare that a employer can offer 12.00(as example given) and the additional 8.00 in compensation.

For many small businesses the cost of compensation packages far exceeds the "fair wage".

Many building trades are paid in excess of 23.00 per hour.

The compensation package is not deducted in total from the hourly wage.

There has to be enough profit built in to cover unemployment,medical,taxes,holiday pay,vacation pay. No matter how moral or christian you claim to be there are companies that cannot withstand the continual increases.

Not to many businesses can or will continue to employ and work in a market where they work below the cost.

What you can find now is many that could withstand the economic downturn for a time,they are simply opting out.

My brother is one. With the downturn,the changes looming that will kill most businesses like his,he is not going to lose his families retirement.

He paid medical, life insurance, vacations,bonuses. He was non-union. Paid union wages and above for truly dedicated employee's. The actual wage paid did not reflect 8.00 more in compensation. It was 23.00 per hour plus.

Many of his peers in small business are doing same. With that occurring across the country it puts a sizable bite in revenue for our friendly government parasites.

There are four and probably more doing so in our small town of 9,000.

Combine that with the recent businesses that cannot pass on or handle the increases.

[Dr. Shane]

An employee accepts a lower wage in place of a health care package...

As for SS and medicare I would dare say that if the employors and employees did not pay that tax that the employees wage would be higher...

Exactly right!

"Employers" really don't "pay" anything. They charge their clients and collect the money.

I often have to price the cost of construction. When I do this I figure how many manhours will be required for various tasks. I then multiple the number of manhours by my cost per manhour and then I will add overhead and profit on to that. My cost per manhour is figured by taking the employee's wage and adding to it the cost of benefits. Those benefits include such things as paid vacation, use of company vehicles, sick days, 401K match, health insurance and uniform laundry service. Government mandates like workers compensation, Social Security and unemployment insurance are also benefits that must be added on.

The cost of these benefits being part of the manhour cost means they are placed on to the cost of the end product - in my case, construction. Without the cost of those benefits either the employee would be paid more or the cost of the end product would be less. Either way, the employer doesn't make any more or less money.

There are some industries that are so competitive that small business owners cannot offer benefits beyond those mandated by the government because if they do all of their customers will simple go to their competitors. A government mandate, like Social Security, levels the playing field so that all business owners can include it in their benefit package without being at a disadvantage to their competitors.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane has made this a moral,christian issue.

Shane has quoted Jesus. He is my moral authority.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane wants the government to level the playing field. That is not the business of government in a free society. It is the business of a socialist government.

Wrong. The government must do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. The people do not have the power to level the playing field so the government must step in and do so.

A socialist government is one where the government takes over the private industry. That was done during WW2. The government told private industry what they could and could not make. They rationed products so that people could not buy what they wanted. Many products like gasoline, sugar, rubber and nylon was rationed. The automobile industry was converted to building tanks, jeeps and airplanes. The government actually banned the production of civilian automobiles.

Government regulation is much different than government take-over. Government regulation creates a level playing field for the benefit of society as a whole. That is why we have a minimum wage, environmental laws, unemployment, Social Security and child labor laws. These laws do not make the nation socialist.

Private industry, under government regulation, is what has been responsible for the creation of America's middle class. If we go back to before the year 1900 we will find an industrial America with little regulation and no middle class.

[bonnie]

Quote:

"Employers" really don't "pay" anything. They charge their clients and collect the money.

If employer's don't pay anything then there is no reason that all businesses large or small don't offer same. If they pay nothing there is no financial gain to refuse.

Quote:

I often have to price the cost of construction. When I do this I figure how many manhours will be required for various tasks. I then multiple the number of manhours by my cost per manhour and then I will add overhead and profit on to that. My cost per manhour is figured by taking the employee's wage and adding to it the cost of benefits. Those benefits include such things as paid vacation' date=' use of company vehicles, sick days, 401K match, health insurance and uniform laundry service. Government mandates like workers compensation, Social Security and unemployment insurance are also benefits that must be added on.

While you may be a estimator it does not appear your are the owner/employer.

The estimator that worked for my brother for years decided he knew better. He had above average salary and a 100,000.00 bonus at the end of the year.

He wanted more as he knew he was worth it. He started up a competing business. Didn't take long he had a different viewpoint as owner vs estimator.

It is a high stress job. Three years after going on his own,he dropped dead of a heart attack. Major reason,STRESS. Stress he didn't have as estimator or employee.

At this point in time the profit margin is not there. If he remained in business he would be operating below actual cost.

30 years and he has said enough.

When my husband's expenses went up,it was not always possible to pass all to consumer.Employee's didn't eat it,we did.

You haven't explained yet where it is written that the employer is responsible for you if you take sick days etc.

Cost can only be passed on to consumers so long.Then consumer's pull in their horns except for the most necessary purchase.

Quote:

The cost of these benefits being part of the manhour cost means they are placed on to the cost of the end product - in my case, construction. Without the cost of those benefits either the employee would be paid more or the cost of the end product would be less. Either way, the employer doesn't make any more or less money.

This is not true. If the employer does not foot part of the bill then all should get generous compensation. There would be no reason for the government to "level the playing field"

Quote:

There are some industries that are so competitive that small business owners cannot offer benefits beyond those mandated by the government because if they do all of their customers will simple go to their competitors. A government mandate, like Social Security, levels the playing field so that all business owners can include it in their benefit package without being at a disadvantage to their competitors.

[/quote']

That is called competition.Competition is a fact in all businesses.

Why does the mandate of SS level the playing field? If there is no cost to employer there is no playing field to level.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Shane has made this a moral,christian issue.

Shane has quoted Jesus. He is my moral authority.

Shane has stretched the words of Jesus and has fashioned moral authority to suit his purpose

[bonnie]

Quote:

Wrong. The government must do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. The people do not have the power to level the playing field so the government must step in and do so.

Wrong. People do have the power to level the playing field, especially at this point in time.

My husband could not have hired anyone at less than the going rate.

What he could do as non-union was pay the laborer his fair pay. Some more,some less,depending on their ability and willingness to learn and become more proficient.

Quote:

A socialist government is one where the government takes over the private industry. That was done during WW2. The government told private industry what they could and could not make. They rationed products so that people could not buy what they wanted. Many products like gasoline, sugar, rubber and nylon was rationed. The automobile industry was converted to building tanks, jeeps and airplanes. The government actually banned the production of civilian automobiles.

Have you been watching lately?? There is no stimulus money unless it is a union shop. That is hardly leveling the playing field. That is demanding a union presence.

Quote:

Government regulation is much different than government take-over. Government regulation creates a level playing field for the benefit of society as a whole. That is why we have a minimum wage, environmental laws, unemployment, Social Security and child labor laws. These laws do not make the nation socialist.

Read more carefully the direction Obama wants this country to go.

Social Security was nothing but a slush fund for government.

Maybe letting employee's invest or save a portion of their income tax free would have ended up with more profit for the employee.

Then of course the employer would not be paying half.

Regulation to a certain point is needed. Regulation over a contractual agreement between employer and employee is not.

Quote:

Private industry, under government regulation, is what has been responsible for the creation of America's middle class. If we go back to before the year 1900 we will find an industrial America with little regulation and no middle class.

Again,are you watching what is happening to private industry under Obama and what he hopes to ram thru that will take care of much of the private industry?

[CyberGuy]

I would not worry to much about the health care bill. It may barely pass the house but it will not pass the senate this year. Not in its current form. The public option will not be accepted by the senate. Arm twisting the senators will only backfire in 2010. It is very interesting to watch what Obama will try next. The closer the bills passage (if it passes at all) comes to the 2010 election the greater will be the backlash against Obama. That is good.

[Dr. Shane]

While you may be a estimator it does not appear your are the owner/employer...

It is a high stress job. Three years after going on his own,he dropped dead of a heart attack.

[Dr. Shane]

There is no stimulus money unless it is a union shop.

Not true. I am building a project right now that is receiving stimulus money and it is not a unionized project. In Minnesota all government projects must be union or pay prevailing wages. That is how it was when I lived there. That had nothing to do with stimulus money.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The employer passes the cost of government mandates on to the consumer. The employer's profit comes from a mark-up which is normally a percentage of costs. So when government mandates drive up costs, in many cases, the employer's mark-up will also increase so not only will the employee receive more but the employer will actually make more money too.

You keep saying that. There is a limit to what the market can or will absorb.

If what you say is true then there is no reason a small business owner does not provide all in your wisdom they should.

No,if the employer's expenses go up,it does not automatically mean so does his profit.

When my husband bid a job he could not always pass along his cost to consumers

Quote:

The Social Security mandate levels the playing field because all employers have to pay it. If it was not mandated, those that wanted to provide it to their employees would have to compete with those that did not want to provide it to their employees. The government mandate creates a level playing field.

If the going rate of a job was 20.00 less 8.00 for benefit package or the employer pays 20.00 and you pay your own sounds like a level playing field to me.

You cannot recoup everything that goes towards the employee.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

There is no stimulus money unless it is a union shop.

Not true. I am building a project right now that is receiving stimulus money and it is not a unionized project. In Minnesota all government projects must be union or pay prevailing wages. That is how it was when I lived there. That had nothing to do with stimulus money.

http://www.unions.org/home/labor-unions-news/latest-unions-news/84/15/04/2009/

Stimulus for construction jobs

Stimulus for Union Construction Jobs

A massive federal economic stimulus package is expected to spur hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new construction projects across the country, and one of the questions at hand is who will benefit from this spending spree. A federal order has encouraged the use of project labor agreements — which limit work to union-only workers — on large, complex projects. Supporters of PLAs say they are needed to keep projects on time and on budget, while opponents say they drive up the cost of many projects and allow a ‘Big Dig mentality’ to proliferate.

On Feb. 6, President Obama signed into law an executive order that sent shock waves through the construction industry and reignited a debate that has raged for decades.

At the heart of the order is support for use of so-called project labor agreements, or PLAs, for large-scale, federally funded construction projects — and there will be many of these put in the pipeline over next several years as a result of a massive federal economic stimulus package. Under PLAs, those managing large construction projects — be they private corporations or government entities — agree to use exclusively union labor in return for the unions’ pledge not to strike.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

There is no stimulus money unless it is a union shop.

Not true. I am building a project right now that is receiving stimulus money and it is not a unionized project. In Minnesota all government projects must be union or pay prevailing wages. That is how it was when I lived there. That had nothing to do with stimulus money.

It matters little what is on paper, unions have very little clout in the past decade or so,but since Obama are gaining ground again.

Most small business owners do pay the prevailing wage.If they didn't they would not have many employee's to worry about

A non-union company didn't even bother bidding a job if it were commerical.

My husband was non-union. He wouldn't even bother with bidding a commercial job.

[CyberGuy]

The best thing that can happen for the GOP is the passage of the Health care bill. If the bill is defeated then the GOP has little cause in 2010 as the anger of the voters will have subsided by 2010.

On the other hand if the bill is rammed down the throat of americans the voters will rise in upriseing in 2010 and 2012 and turn against the democrats.