A Comprehsive List Of New Taxes

[Ted Oplinger]

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.

Got to respectfully disagree with that assessment. Cap and Trade is still very much in play, and is evoking the same response in Americans as the Health Care Bill.

The other heavyweight issue is the economy. The "recovery" has in reality been for Wall Street and the banks. With total joblessness over 15%, people still worried about whether they have a job next month, when fuel prices are again going to spike, and when the consequences of massive government spending (sharp rises in inflation, further tanking of retirement funds, possible collapse of the dollar)...That issue just isn't going to go away between now and the 2010 elections.

Another rampage like what was seen at Fort Hood yesterday, and people will start voting the conclusion that the political Left just isn't what is preached from the State-run Media.

There will still be lots of anger in November, 2010. It will be directed as much at Democrats, whose policies have failed to rectify what they have so vehemently declared to be Bush's fault (even though the Republicans cannot block anything the Democrats want to do) - as it will be against Republicans who have bought the Left's line that to win elections, Republicans have to always tow the Left perspective.

The anger will be directed as much at Democrat leadership that is seen to be forcing the unwanted, too costly down our throats, as it will be the Republicans who offered no contrasting leadership.

[Dr. Shane]

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

Stimulus for construction jobs...

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

The large-scale projects make up only a small portion of the stimulus bill. Most non-union shops do not compete for those projects anyway. There are many more smaller projects in the stimulus bill that are open for non-union shops like mine.

[Dr. Shane]

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

Then where did he get the money to pay for the costs? Or did he go bankrupt and simply not pay his costs?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Then where did he get the money to pay for the costs? Or did he go bankrupt and simply not pay his costs?

No we did not go bankrupt and not pay expenses.

He took less profit and worked longer hours. Took many small side jobs he could do on his own that he would not ordinarily have taken.

A short workday 6 days a week was 11 hours.

[Dr. Shane]

He took less profit and worked longer hours.

So the money must have come from the customers. He passed the cost onto the customers. He may have had to decrease his profit margin because the playing field was not level but the costs were still passed down to the customer. The customers always pay the bills or the business goes bankrupt.

[CyberGuy]

That assesment may be correct IF the influx of cash causes hyperinflation by 2010 or 2012. It may take longer. Right now with people spending less and putting more into savings rather than spending it this has the effect of countering the influx of cash Obama put into the economy. I doubt we will see hyberinflation for some time. But we will sometime. When is the question.

[bonnie]

Quote:

So the money must have come from the customers. He passed the cost onto the customers. He may have had to decrease his profit margin because the playing field was not level but the costs were still passed down to the customer. The customers always pay the bills or the business goes bankrupt.

This is almost laughable. Let me see if you understand the math.

When you cannot pass on the increase by upping your price,that means you cannot always pass on increase in cost

A house that he may have bid for 7,000.00 ,which took care of all expenses plus our profit,he would still have to bid 7,000.00

and swallow the increase. During the wonderful Carter years there were many times we dropped it below what it had cost the years before.

Depending on what may have caused a hike part or all of increase could not be passed to buyer.During tough economic times a building contractor cannot pass on the cost of building the house,all the subs have to drop or they look for a sub that will.

The homes he did were large homes 4-6000 square feet. When we needed it he would take on a typical modest home by himself.

That usually meant he was working for wages as did the rest of employee's.

Going from 7,000.00 to do a house and then doing same for 6250.00 is not passing on the cost. It is called absorbing the cost.

Thankfully he did his own bidding and did not depend on a estimator or project manager to "think a cost was passed on" while dropping the price

[Dr. Shane]

If we are going to talk about the Carter years we need to talk about inflation. That is a different animal than health-care insurance. When a company signs a lump sum contract, inflation that occurs after the contract price was agreed on can eat up a company's profit. That is not what we are talking about.

When a company builds a "spec" home and the market tanks, the company can lose money. Building spec homes is like buying stocks. The word spec is short for speculation. Obviously when a company deals in speculation they may end up losing money. That is not what we are talking about.

Government mandates like Social Security and Workman's Compensation are passed on to the customer. They have to be. The only source of revenue for a company is the customer - unless they sell stocks but that can only be done so often. Of course banks can loan a company money but a loan is not revenue. The small business owner isn't going to sell costs so the only way he or she can pay for government mandates is to charge the customer.

[bonnie]

When the cost becomes to high the customer doesn't want to pay.

If my husband received 7,000.00 for a large home,and the next year for that same home he receives 6250.00 the homeowner is paying the 6250.00 but we had to eat the difference out of my husband's profit.

In a extremely tight economy as in the Carter years,many times he made only wages.

The employee is old enough to work,most have families and you are saying he doesn't have the brains to take care of his own business.

If he is paid a fair wage let him take care of his own SS just like many of us had to.

When you file taxes the IRS would figure out pretty quick the employee had not paid his SS or his with holding

Moderator's note: the entire previous post does not need to be quoted.

[Dr. Shane]

Why shouldn't the employee pay his or her own workman's compensation too?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Why shouldn't the employee pay his or her own workman's compensation too?

Because on many jobs it has been made law.At least here it is. Someone to pay the bills if a employee is injured on the job.

Once on the job the employer has the responsibility for whatever the employee does.If the employee screws up,he is not the one to pay to do it right.If he falls off a ladder and breaks a arm,leg or whatever,it the the responsibility of the employer.

Someone breaks a leg on my property,I will be held liable and sued.

That does not mean the employer has to babysit a employer to make sure he pays his bills and his taxes on time.

If the just wage is paid,maybe they need to take care of their own needs.Just as we did and millions of others

[Dr. Shane]

If the law didn't require worker's compensation, the worker could buy it for him or herself. Somewhere in the past, society decided the employer should be responsible for employees if they get hurt on the job.

Workers' compensation

Quote:

Prior to the statutory establishment of workers' compensation, employees who were injured on the job were only able to pursue their employer through civil or tort law. In the United Kingdom, the legal view of employment as a master-servant relationship required employees to prove employer malice or negligence, a high burden for employees to meet. Although employers' liability was unlimited, courts usually ruled in favor of employers, paying little attention to the full losses experienced by workers, including medical costs, lost wages, and loss of future earning capacity...

In the US, the first state such worker's compensation law was passed in Maryland in 1902, and the first law covering federal employees was passed in 1906. By 1949, all states had enacted some kind of workers' compensation regime. Such schemes were originally known as "workman's compensation," but today, most jurisdictions have adopted the term "workers' compensation" as a gender-neutral alternative.

[phkrause]

My brother-in-law when he was here in Mass would bid on many jobs against union bidders and won most of those jobs.

pk

[bonnie]

My brother-in-law when he was here in Mass would bid on many jobs against union bidders and won most of those jobs.

pk

Most unions do not have the clout they used to have. My husband was always non-union.

Union thugs would come around but they simply chased them off.

Unions under Obama are re-emerging.

My brother is a independent trucker. When the truckers union would strike,union employee's actually shot at him from a overpass because he was running regardless. Now you hear nothing about them

[phkrause]

Unions here in Mass have very much big clout, and have had it ever since I've lived here. The big dig was one example. And not only that, if you were not a union company they did awful things to your equipment, cut tires, brake into your locked up tool sites, etc. Unions are and still are very strong here on the east coast.

pk

[Woody]