George Geist in gray

Thank you very much. I knew thats what you were all beating around the bush about and finally Mr. Stovall came out with it.

The issue of being put under greater scrutiny by the taxing authorities. Now come on wasn't that easy? Why couldn't anybody else come out with that?

Mr. Geist, you've missed the point. Greater scrutiny by taxing authorities is not the primary issue, the real issue is the academically inspired, politically correct, creation of a society in which the Middle Class has been politically neutered while being forced to fiscally support both Big Business and Big Lazy. It's not politically correct to mention this, but the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and we folks caught in the middle are expected to pay for it all.

Yes, this is a cause for concern. I have thought a lot about that myself and it is a legitimate cause for worry. I believe that no evidence can be found in other trades at least that I've heard of any increase in harrassment.

You might want to read what Mr. Maki had to say about real costs. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I also believe that the increased money coming to us will more than offset any increased costs.

The problem with such thinking is that you, like many economists, fail to consider the obvious ad absurdum argument: What will happen to the American economy when the number of non-productive members of society exceeds that of productive members? If we continue to fail to educate our children, allow enough industry and jobs to be sent offshore, trade enough jobs for McJobs, then sooner or later, the standard of living in America will achieve parity with that of your basic Third World country. The stockholders of multinationals won't mind, the rest of the world will probably figure we got our just deserts, but the Great Unwashed Middle Class will cease to exist in appreciable numbers.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:

DANGER!DANGER!DANGER! Jason Maki needs to run, not walk to the nearest CPA. If he really is paying those amounts out of every shoe job he is either unimformed of current tax law (and doing his own) or the most charitable, to the govt., person I've ever encountered or living in his own Cyber Reality.
A sole prop. shoeing business that generates $100,000 gross reciepts a year, on average, should have no more than a $13,000 total tax liability after deducting all legal operating expenses. If he would like to further reduce his taxes he can increase the funding to his retirement account (SEP up to $42,000) to the point his FICA would only be $3,500 and income tax less $1000. Don't believe me? I've been grossing $100,000 for more than a decade. Come see me at the IHCS in Cincinnatti on Thurs. I'll show you. I think the Honorable Mr. Stovall is on the right track but stopped a little short of the station. It's about taxes. The problem with our industry and this whole license paranoia stems from the fact that alot of us choose to run a "cash only" business and/or their 1040 is best described as a flight of fancy. The IRS might be slow but they are not ****** and can be an irresistable force.
I don't curse when I write out those checks for my 1040 ES. I think I'm pretty lucky. If you are paying taxes it means YOU'RE MAKING MONEY! The USA is a great place to live and raise my family and having to pay only 12-15% of my income to do it IS A BARGAIN and that includes paying into Social Security. If I live as long as my father, grand fathers and great grand fathers I'll be getting most of it back.

Gross receipts mean nothing unless you also know the net net receipts.

Perhaps Cordell will jump in here and help us out.

And all those legal operating expenses you are talking about, include all those fees and taxes Jason referenced. And then some.

Now. I don't disagree that you need an accountant with a really sharp pencilto help you keep as much of your hard earned money as you can, but the fact still remains that the CODB(cost of doing business) for a farrier runs relatively high.

And I don't care how much or how little anyone makes. The government is still getting too much of it.

Though I know we are not supposed to, necessarily, recommend anyone either individual or business , during our discussions, I cannot help but put in a major plug for my accountants. The firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

Perhaps I should go to a real firm... The tax guy I use is just that...

Jason

Hey,
Why do we have a ***bersome and unbalanced tax code(other than the obvious wealth redistribution mechanism that it really is)?
Would not a Nat;l sales tax of say 3% to 4% on all products, foodstuffs and services not generate a huge pool of money? Would it not also grow the economy as people found themselves with more real green?
Because it removes a huge beauracracy from control of people and their means. Beurocrats do not relenquish power, only expand their reach and use of it ...
that is very relevant to this conversation.
Jason

Jason Maki wrote: What are you? Some kind of rabble rouser or something? Why it just wouldn't be fair to leave the money in the hands of the ones that earn it. Why the entire welfare class would have to do without such esssentials as new cadillacs, plasma tvs, funky clothes, relaxation and recreation time. Hell, they might even have to practice some kind of population control if the gov'ment wasn't going to pay for all those worthless children. Further, you'd force people to make decisions as to when, where and how much of their money they are going to spend. ARE YOU NUTS????????

How are you going to keep all those politicians employed? What would you suggest they do if they have to actually EARN a living? And, while we're at it, lets get rid of that cushy pension program all those congressmen/women and senators enjoy. Lets make them subject to the same Social Security as the rest of us. Wanna bet how long it would then take to reform Social Security?
How about making their salary, and that of teachers at every level, merit based instead of tenure guaranteed?

You do know that Steve Forbes has been a huge proponent of a NST for many years. Most of the pols regard him in much the same way as I hold regard for F. Strasser's hoof butchering guidelines.

And as long as we're going to talk about a NST, lets also put a ceiling on it. A ceiling that can never, ever , under any cir***stances, be violated.

Never ever be violated? Like the constituition, which was cir***vented to create the income tax, FICA, etc in. the first place. When consent to be goverened is given, it can never be revoked... with out a "little revolution", or atleast the implied threat of one...
I am not saying this is neccasary, but at what point might it become "proper"? What if the folks pulling the wagonand paying the tolls just quit? That would in fact be a very real revolution that would make Ghandi proud. You are going to MAKE me work? Make me THINK? Why should I?
Proffesor Williams, a guest speaker on the Rush show last week, or two weeks ago had a solution. Every law passed, every benefit given by the government must apply to ALL people....
Jason

Jason Maki in gray deletia

Proffesor Williams, a guest speaker on the Rush show last week, or two weeks ago had a solution. Every law passed, every benefit given by the government must apply to ALL people.

What a seditious thought! What next? Will the common folk who actually pay the freight start thinking they're entitled to free postage, great health coverage, cushy retirement benefits, and other perks just because officials slopping at the public trough get them? Next thing you know, some member of the working classes may have the temerity to suggest that lobbying is tantamount to bribery. And, election reform? You've gotta be kidding.

Does anybody besides me ever get to thinking anyone who spends more to get a job than the job will pay is probably a crook? That every elected official who accepts contributions is beholding to somebody? Or, that sooner or later, every note comes due? Just think: Tom DeLay, the poster child for political avarice and unrestrained greed, was third in line of succession to the presidency - and if that don't scare you, nothing will.

You know Rick,
every so often you say a thing or two that makes me get me ******ed off. "worthless children"! sir, and I mean "sir "in the lowest sense of the word but still recognizing that you are human,please take a look in the mirror.
While I respect you as a human, that comment makes me wish your parents had used a condom.

No regards

Ray Steele
Rick Burten wrote:

Jason,

For a long time I have been in favor of a national sales tax, seems to me if you are "lucky" enough or earnest enough to make it to spend, then pay for your share to ceasar. Without any frills, by that I mean, you should not need a CPA to get you the best tax rate. It should be simple,so simple that even I should be able to do my taxes, and be able to get the best/fair deal.. my feeling is that tax filing should not be a seperate industry, the common man should be able to file his taxes, or a corporations. Keep it understandable. Do you think there is a reason to complicate it? Do you have time to read and comprehend the tax code?
I'm sure there are reasons for the complications, I just havn't heard them,or maybe they are to complicated for me to understand.

Regards

Ray Steele
Jason Maki wrote:

Rick, Operating expenses do not include fees or taxes.

brian robertson wrote:
Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but around here, since I'm paying the freight, they sure do.

The cost of doing business for farriers is embarassingly low compared to other trades or service businesses. Rick needs to sit in on a local Chamber of Commerce meeting or a Small Business Administration seminar and talk to rest of the business world. I do believe it would be an eye openning experience. Rick and Jason are shooting from the hip on this topic. They've made up their minds and won't let silly things that the facts get in the way of their fantasy.
At one time a thought Rick was rather clever and open minded but he has shown his true colors with his most recent posts.

ray steele wrote: You know what Ray? I couldn't care less. By the way, are you aware that in a large percentage of the inhabited world, human life,including (gasp) children, has less value than does that of animals, particularly, beasts of burden and providers of sustenence. IOW, human life , having little if any value, is worthless. Hell, when America was a mostly agrarian society, people had lots of children not necessarily because they loved children, but because they had economic value.
Want to know how valuable human life is in say, the Middle East? Look no further than your newspaper or television for reports on the suicide bombers. They at least had some value to the terrorists who recruited, trained, and then sent them to their ignoble deaths. But truthfully, those leaders know their follower's lives are basically, worthless and deep in their heart of hearts, the bombers know it too.

And, a pox on LBJ and his "Great Society" that created this welfare class of society. Perhaps if that group used contraceptives, then there would be some non-religious, non-politically correct value attached to those lives. But in retrospect, those lives aren't truely worthless. Afterall, there is a dollar amount that attaches each and every time one more is born to a mother on welfare. Especially when that individual has no intention of ever leaving the system.
So lets see how worthwhile they really are. What do they contribute to society and or the economy? Crime? Drugs? Violence? Terror? Poverty? A "you owe me" attitude, a drain on resources, public and private, Gangs of thugs? Educational failure? All worthwhile things don't you think?
And, While Hillary may think it takes a village, I think it takes a bulldozer.