Message
No, I wouldn't either, for an older or a younger dog. We had a six year old German Shepherd that developed cancer. We were told about chemo as well, but they said that it would only extend his life by 6-18 months. He would be miserable for a large part of that time, assuming the chemo even worked at all. It was a very hard decision, but the main point for us, as others have mentioned, was that he wouldn't have known why he was suffering through it.
Anonymous wrote:
This article states the issue perfectly. They cannot pass the cost to providers so companies have to cut costs by laying off workers and moving plants overseas. Obama doesn't understand how jobs are created in the private sector.
Http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/other_us_medical_device_makers.html
Although it is stated in the article, there's no explanation as to why the cost can't be passed on to consumers, as is normal for every single other sales tax in the country. You can't argue that it is about keeping prices competitive, since all suppliers would have to pay the same tax. All of your articles state that companies are restructuring in order to reduce costs to offset the cost of the tax. Are you making the assertion that if the tax had not been enacted, companies would not have shifted production to other countries to reduce costs? Would they have restructured their organization in order to reduce costs by $50mn+, thereby increasing their shareholder profits, if the tax wasn't looming?
It sounds to me like you are the one that doesn't understand how the private sector works. If these changes would increase company profits, then they would have been implemented whether the tax existed or not. The actual price of the tax will be passed on the consumers(By the end of January, you'll be able to find plenty of articles blaming device price increases on the tax, despite all of these statements from the companies about how they can't pass the cost on to the consumers), which means the companies will end up more profitable than before. Do you truly believe that companies would not try to reduce costs and increase profits if this tax wasn't being implemented?
Anonymous wrote:Well when a decent house costs over 1.5 million then of course 100k is poor. save me the drivel about how a post ww2 1200 sqrft rambler is good enough for a family of 4, it isn't. Move to any other area in the country and you can buy the equivalent size / located 1 million dollar house in DC on a 100k income.
Sorry, but the price of real estate in one small area doesn't make a $100k income "poor". There is a middle ground, which is the often-debated "middle class" that we are referring to. They don't buy $1.5 million dollar homes, but that doesn't mean most people would consider them poor. Perhaps to someone like Romney, they seem like it, but that's been a big issue with his campaign. Perhaps a family of four with an income of $100k can't afford a nice house in a good DC neighborhood, but that's why expensive cities have suburbs.
Anonymous wrote:"Meyer said the actions were taken to proactively prepare the company to address the Affordable Care Act's mandated U.S. Medical Device Tax, which is scheduled to begin in 2013."
Yes, and he apparently started planning for it back in 2005, when they opened the factory in Mexico and started moving production there. The company owner couldn't possibly be trying to shift blame away from himself for moving US jobs overseas. I also love his example in which the entire tax is paid out of company profits entirely, since no company would ever dream of passing the cost on to the consumers. I'm sure that's how it will play out in reality as well.
From your article:
So, they are closing a factory and moving a large part of the production to their factory in Mexico, which they opened seven years ago. Obviously, this is because of Obamacare and not the standard practice of virtually every US manufacturing company over the past twenty years. It must be because of the "turmoil" caused by a 2.3% tax that hasn't been implemented yet. It couldn't have anything to do with the present turmoil in the European markets, which are having a far greater impact on global sales than anything happening in the US.
The majority of the job losses will come from Beaverton, Oregon, where Welch Allyn plans to close a factory. About 160 workers will lose their jobs when the factory that makes wireless portable patient monitors closes, Meyer said.
Production of those products will move to Skaneateles, he said. At the same time, the company will move its remaining thermometer probe cover, lamp and some of its blood pressure cuff production to its factory in Tijuana, Mexico, Meyer said. That factory opened about seven years ago, he said.
So, they are closing a factory and moving a large part of the production to their factory in Mexico, which they opened seven years ago. Obviously, this is because of Obamacare and not the standard practice of virtually every US manufacturing company over the past twenty years. It must be because of the "turmoil" caused by a 2.3% tax that hasn't been implemented yet. It couldn't have anything to do with the present turmoil in the European markets, which are having a far greater impact on global sales than anything happening in the US.
The funniest thing about statements like this, as well as most of the presidential election statements from both sides, is that they all pre-suppose that the office of the president has far more power than it actually does. As for this particular president, yes, all the same statements were made back in 2008, and the biggest thing critics can point to as a "loss of freedom" is the ACA, and even then, I haven't found any coherent statements on exactly what freedoms. Just cries of "Read it and you'll see", which don't work well because I actually have read it, and I didn't find the nefarious regulations hidden within it.
Also, I feel like I should get bonus points for using the word "nefarious".
Also, I feel like I should get bonus points for using the word "nefarious".
You are upset because he said our course of action was to "Just sit back and see what the Egyptians do." I'm just curious, but in your world, how do you determine whether or not a country is an ally, an enemy, or something in between, if not by observing their actions and reactions as suggested? This is a new government, so there's not much past history to look at.(And what there is hasn't always been aligned with US interests, although they sometimes have) What do you think we should "do"? Pass them a note in the UN during recess asking "Will you be my ally? Check the box for yes or no."?
Anonymous wrote:I wrote this, and I agree with you. I was being sarcastic. The Obama administration will not officially recognize Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. Instead of just having Israel's government decide where it's capital is, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize wants a consensus.
Shame on him for continuing the policies of the previous two administrations regarding the official US government position on Jerusalem.
You do realize that the US government had the same position under Bush, right? Did you believe he also wanted a consensus before making an official statement? Or is it only a bad thing if done by the Obama administration.
Anonymous wrote:We pay estimated taxes and while it requires planning/budgeting it does not affect our tax burden. I believe you have an option to align the payments with the cash flow if it is very uneven. It sounds like you need a better accountant rather than a change in tax policy.
I second the above. There's no reason you should be paying estimated tax payments on income you have not received, and there are easy-to-find instructions detailing the various ways these situations can be handled. Any competent CPA should be able to handle this for you easily. If they can't, or if they are charging you a fortune for doing it, then you should find another one. On the other hand, it might not be the CPA's fault if your business records are not well maintained. If they have to spend hours just trying to determine what figures they need, then that would also explain high fees being charged. Either way, the tax policy itself doesn't sound like the primary issue here.
I'm not the OP, so I'm not sure what particular app they used. You can find links to the official apps here, http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml, but there are others that will work as well. I actually just downloaded some of the podcasts that had the timing included and used those when I did the program. Since then, I've switch to using Endomondo to track my runs.
I'm currently on week 5 of the 100 pushups program, although I've spent two weeks on weeks three and four. I'm not sure how far I'll make it, but I'm still aiming at the 100 mark.
I'm currently on week 5 of the 100 pushups program, although I've spent two weeks on weeks three and four. I'm not sure how far I'll make it, but I'm still aiming at the 100 mark.
Anonymous wrote:No one is forced to be a teacher. You know what you are going to get paid when you enter the profession. All lawyers have a law degree. You pay more for the ones with more experience, not more law degrees.
Did you know that there are more advanced law degrees, such as an LLM? Particularly in fields such as tax, those with an LLM will make more on average than those without it. Oh, and it isn't actually necessary to have a law degree to become a lawyer in some states. So you may want to try for a better comparison. Receiving higher pay for a higher level of education is common in most professional careers. It should not be the be-all and end-all in determining pay, but there should be some encouragement to continued educational advancement, just as there should be encouragement for other types of improvement.
And if interviewing, always bring extra copies with you in case they don't have the latest version. I had an interviewer accidentally pull a five year old resume from their company database once. Fortunately, I had an updated copy right there, which made things much easier.
Anonymous wrote:List a source from Romney's economic team that indicates part of his plan is to eliminate deductions for the middle class.
Go on the facts not 3rd party opinion narratives.
I can't list a source stating what they plan to do, simply because they refuse to release the information, unlike the Obama campaign. However, in Mitt Romney's own words in a CBS interview:
BOB SCHIEFFER: We-- we know, Governor, you've told us, you haven't been bashful about telling us where you want to cut taxes. When are you going to tell us where you're going to get the revenue? Which of the deductions are you going to be willing to eliminate? Which of the tax credits are you going to-- when will you going to be able to tell us that?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, we'll go through that process with Congress as to which of all the different deductions and exemptions are the ones--
BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): But do you have any ideas now, like, the home mortgage interest deduction, you know, various ones?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, Simpson-Bowles went through a process of saying how they would be able to reach a-- a setting where they had actually, under their proposal even more revenue for the government with lower rates. So mathematically, it's been proved to be possible. We can have lower rates, as I propose, that creates more growth, and we can limit deductions and exemptions--
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you're not--
MITT ROMNEY: --but my view-- my-- my view is the right way to do that is to limit them for high-income individuals because I want to keep the progressivity of the code. One-- one of the absolute requirements of any tax reform that I have in mind is that people who are at the high end, whether you call them the one percent or two percent or half a percent, that people at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden they're paying now. I'm not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest. I'm looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and, also, to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs. For me, this is all about creating good jobs.
By refusing to specify what income levels will be affected, what deductions and exemptions will be altered or revoked, and generally not being forthcoming with information, we are left to speculate based on the amount of tax cuts that he is implementing and the additional revenue that will be needed to offset those cuts. You'll note that he states he wants to reduce tax rates for everyone. That is not the same as the tax burden. If you want me to accept any statement about the affect of his tax plans as fact, then you'll have to be prepared to actually state the entirety of his tax plan, not just the bits and pieces that his campaign believes will appeal to people. If the rest is so beneficial to everyone, why not reveal it now and win more votes?
Anonymous wrote:The piece you cited has been debunked because it makes assumptions that Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. NO WHERE does it state Romney will eliminate deductions for the middle class. This is based on an opinion not a fact "
"Gale says you can't pay for Romney's tax cuts for high earners just by eliminating deductions — unless you also raise taxes on the middle class."
"The $2000 "tax hike" figure that Warren cites is grounded in a third-party analysis that Romney has criticized, but one the authors stand by. The authors also note that their calculations are not precise because they lack some specifics of Romney's plan."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/fact-check-manufacturing/index.html?hpt=po_c2
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/27/160083532/romney-s-plan-to-broaden-tax-base-finds-critics
I thought you said it had been debunked? I read both links, and others. At no point has anyone definitively stated that the report was not accurate. No one can until we know exactly which deductions Romney would eliminate, information which he has stated he would not share until after the election. So we can only speculate, based on the facts and figures available to us. The report I originally mentioned was a Romney supporter detailing ways the tax cuts could be paid for. The only statements made against it are that the assumptions as to which deductions would be eliminated may not be accurate. That's hardly "debunking" the article.
Anonymous wrote:Please state facts not boogie man stories and opinions. Financially speaking please lay out the changes financially for each candidate.
The main point is that the thing that affects OP directly would be taxes.
Tell me exactly what tax deductions, breaks, credits, or whatever Romney plans on eliminating at what income levels, and I would be happy to do an analysis for any particular income level. Until he actually sees fit to share that information with us though, we'll only be able to speculate based on the limited information he has given us about the additional revenue that will be needed to offset the cost of his income tax cuts. Others, such as myself, don't just get giddy when told that my marginal tax rate would be lowered without knowing that my total tax bill will not be higher because of it.