Taxes.

[OverkillZJ]

I've been going through my financials trying to prepare myself to be bent over and violated in a year I've worked harder than ever. I found a no-bullshit 2011 vs. 2012 tax table document I thought I'd share.
http://www.e-relationship.com/Gmailer/pdf_newslet_viewer.aspx?pdfname=NFMT_EB1SC14LHQ3WK 5U0RK8OFPKNL8

Didn't the savior say taxes would be lower for the lower incomes over previous years? I love the "Self Employed" status, which essentially means double the numbers on medicare and social security (of which I will never see any of.)

[JeepSteeler]

Thanks for that link Matt. Just skimmed it quick but I'll read it through. We have a business on the side and get destroyed every year, this year will be worse since my wife had a really good year with her business. I'm going to go pick up some Astroglide this week just so I'm ready.

[jackb1]

Don't forget we pay into the state unemployment fund and can never collect. I feel the pain. SBO is getting harder each year.

[Wrecker]

I am hoping its no bad for me this year. Off year on income and can write off my health insurance. What a joke it is. After last year, I cant handle another like it. I wont be looking at your sight. I want to live in this little dream world I have created for a little longer.

Yeah the unemployment fund chaps my azz. And the double SSI and Medicare can make you hate people.

[DixieJeeper]

I never knew unemployment work the way it does in PA vs. VA until at my current fulltime job I learned that flat rate techs can file for partial unemployment even while working if they didn't hit 40 hours. In VA you only are eligible if you got laid off/downsized/etc but you CAN NOT get it if you fired. If you pay into the system you should be able to collect... in my mind. VA you don't pay into it it gets funded by personal prop tax and general taxes.

[jackb1]

laid off/downsized/etc, I agree you should get unemployement. If a person is fired for cause, then he/she doesn't deserve it. They should have been doing their job.

[SirFuego]

laid off/downsized/etc, I agree you should get unemployement. If a person is fired for cause, then he/she doesn't deserve it. They should have been doing their job.
Problem is that employers aren't required to provide a reason for letting someone go. Not to mention that there are some pretty bad employers out there who blame something on an ex-employee that wasn't their fault. Or sometimes the employer/employee just don't work well together. So short of knowing whether they voluntarily left or not (which is what currently determines who gets unemployment), there is no "good" way to determine who is deserving or not.

Talking to other friends in my industry, unless it's a horrific offense, most companies who fire their employees for work-related reasons (i.e. not due to downsizing) give them the option to either resign or be fired.

[OverkillZJ]

Employers I've worked with will simply decide to "contest" unemployment or not. They will usually only contest it from what I've seen if that employee is what you'd call grossly negligent, told off clients, stole office equipment, etc. Otherwise unemployment will always be approved by default.

[jackb1]

Problem is ....

In my ideal method, they could provide a reason if/when it is contested. So, if someone feels they were unjustly fired, they could contest.

It isn't a perfect system either way you could do it. It is just very frustrating to know that I will have to pay for the unemployment of someone that, for example, stole from me.

There will be employers that try to take advantage just as there are employees doing so now. If we lived in a world where everybody was honest and wouldn't abuse the system, then it probably wouldn't be a discussion as nobody would steal in the first place.

It is just very frustrating as a business owner to have your hands tied in so many ways that you can be taken advantage of without any real way to mitigate the damage you can suffer from a dishonest employee.


Employers I've worked with will simply decide to "contest" unemployment or not. They will usually only contest it from what I've seen if that employee is what you'd call grossly negligent, told off clients, stole office equipment, etc. Otherwise unemployment will always be approved by default.

Have you ever been through it? I have not (luckily) but was closely involved twice and it was a joke. Employee first time was fired for good cause IMO (was a personal assistant that walked around the office showing off the owners bank statement around bitching about how rich he is and everybody working for him was getting screwed). Second time is a longer story but similar results. Both were paid full benefits.

IMO, unemployment system is broken.

[OverkillZJ]

^It is. I have a personal story about it, but I'm not putting it up on the net.

Employers have no reason to fight unemployment unless they're "mad" and there is emotion involved. It is easier for them to simply let it go, doesn't hurt them any more than it already has.

So yeah - I agree, the system is broken. Hell the whole tax system is broken, but that is another discussion entirely.

[Doty152]

IMO, unemployment system is broken.

This. When I lost my financial aid and had to move back home, I filed for unemployment because I couldn't find a job. I was putting in applications and resumes left and right. Finally I sucked it up and admitted defeat and went to the unemployment office. They informed me that being I left both of my jobs in Pittsburgh on good terms, I couldn't get unemployment. I would have had to have been fired to get benefits.

[SirFuego]

In my ideal method, they could provide a reason if/when it is contested. So, if someone feels they were unjustly fired, they could contest.
Now imagine that you have two bad employees and CANNOT afford to lose both in the short term until you hire at least one other person -- so you fire one to make room for the new hire. Imagine that you are white, one employee is black and the other is white. Who do you fire?

Fire the black guy, provide a reason for doing so, and now you have potential lawsuits (well exceeding the cost of unemployment) out the wazoo to deal with -- which costs money whether you deal with it or not. Not to mention that it is very, very difficult to turn a gray area into black and white when it comes to who is "deserving" or not.

As Matt indicated, it looks like in PA the employer can contest unemployment anyways, so in that case I'd imagine they would need to provide a reason for letting the person go -- thus accomplishing what you want it to do anyways.

Is the system perfect? No. Nor do I think that it's even possible for it to be perfect.

[Super Scout]

While we are on the topic of unemployment, I work for the catholic church. I don't get unemployment so if I get fired all the money I had paid into it in past jobs was pointless.

[OverkillZJ]

This. When I lost my financial aid and had to move back home, I filed for unemployment because I couldn't find a job. I was putting in applications and resumes left and right. Finally I sucked it up and admitted defeat and went to the unemployment office. They informed me that being I left both of my jobs in Pittsburgh on good terms, I couldn't get unemployment. I would have had to have been fired to get benefits.

...Sorry dude - I can't imagine letting unemployment pay out for folks who left on their own terms, for moving or any other reason.

Who wouldn't quit to get unemployment? It is supposed to be a safety net, nothing more.

[jackb1]

Now imagine that you have two bad employees and CANNOT afford to lose both in the short term until you hire at least one other person -- so you fire one to make room for the new hire. Imagine that you are white, one employee is black and the other is white. Who do you fire?

Fire the black guy, provide a reason for doing so, and now you have potential lawsuits (well exceeding the cost of unemployment) out the wazoo to deal with -- which costs money whether you deal with it or not. Not to mention that it is very, very difficult to turn a gray area into black and white when it comes to who is "deserving" or not.

As Matt indicated, it looks like in PA the employer can contest unemployment anyways, so in that case I'd imagine they would need to provide a reason for letting the person go -- thus accomplishing what you want it to do anyways.

Is the system perfect? No. Nor do I think that it's even possible for it to be perfect.

We're both agreeing, I think, that the system is flawed. Regarding who to fire, a white guy or black guy?, seems like a different conversation regarding civil liablity suits and isn't urbane. I'm not suggesting someone can not receive unemployment if they are fired simply for not being a good employee. Some of that burdon falls to the employer, could they have trained the person better, screened better prior to hiring, etc.? I'm simply suggesting that unemployment not be complusary to all employees unless it is contested. AND, if contested, actually let the company win when it is justified.

[jackb1]

While we are on the topic of unemployment, I work for the catholic church. I don't get unemployment so if I get fired all the money I had paid into it in past jobs was pointless.

I assume it has something do with it being 501c3? I've never worked for one so I was not aware.

So you're in the same boat as me, paying in for 15 years and never once being able to withdraw if anything happens. *not that I ever want to mind you.

[Doty152]

...Sorry dude - I can't imagine letting unemployment pay out for folks who left on their own terms, for moving or any other reason.

Who wouldn't quit to get unemployment? It is supposed to be a safety net, nothing more.

I understand that, it makes sense that people would do that. But to me, a forced relocation isn't leaving under my own terms, but that's the way it works. The real problem with my situation wasn't the way unemployment works, but the way financial aid works and our backasswords policies for government grants/loans.

[Super Scout]

I assume it has something do with it being 501c3? I've never worked for one so I was not aware.

So you're in the same boat as me, paying in for 15 years and never once being able to withdraw if anything happens. *not that I ever want to mind you.

Yup, same reason it blows my mind that the Catholic church is always after the Government to extend unemployment benefits when they are exempt from paying it. I am not worried about losing my job but in this day and age the thought always lingers if I did I would be screwed, well not royally but it would still suck lol.

[SirFuego]

it blows my mind that the Catholic church is always after the Government to extend unemployment benefits when they are exempt from paying it.
Well, it's really easy to tell someone else to spend their money. It's a completely different thing when you actually have to spend your own money.

Churches in general have always baffled me, though. They have some of the most elaborate architecture for their structures -- yet always preach that it's the people, not the building that make the "church" and continue to ask for money. Don't get me wrong -- I grew up Catholic and consider myself christian, but I never believed that our "God" was so superficial that he really cares how elaborate our places of worship are. But I significantly digress.

[OverkillZJ]

Well, it's really easy to tell someone else to spend their money. It's a completely different thing when you actually have to spend your own money.

Churches in general have always baffled me, though. They have some of the most elaborate architecture for their structures -- yet always preach that it's the people, not the building that make the "church" and continue to ask for money. Don't get me wrong -- I grew up Catholic and consider myself christian, but I never believed that our "God" was so superficial that he really cares how elaborate our places of worship are. But I significantly digress.

hehehehe... This I could have a discussion on for month's... My Church calls those coming from this kind of background "Recovering Catholics." Not all churches are created equal - It's a shame how many, well, ugh, I'll leave it there.

[OverkillZJ]

While we are on the topic of unemployment, I work for the catholic church. I don't get unemployment so if I get fired all the money I had paid into it in past jobs was pointless. I never thought about that. Yet another reason I'm all about "Fair Tax" which will close the 501 loopholes. I have nothing against charity's and even work with several - but the system is abused more often than it helps. They would thrive regardless of being taxed.

[SirFuego]

Yet another reason I'm all about "Fair Tax" which will close the 501 loopholes. I have nothing against charity's and even work with several - but the system is abused more often than it helps. They would thrive regardless of being taxed.
Sales tax. Income tax. Tax me on what I buy or tax me on what I make. It doesn't matter to me. Just get rid of "credits", "deductions", and "exemptions" altogether.

Although that would practically kill an entire industry, require a bunch of IRS employees to be laid off, and eliminate about 90% of what congress does. So nevermind. Heaven forbid that happens.

I really need to start crunching numbers to determine the feasibility of reducing the gov'ts expenditures through private industry without any gov't interaction.

[Super Scout]

So what your saying is Ron Paul lol ?

[OverkillZJ]

Sales tax. Income tax. Tax me on what I buy or tax me on what I make. It doesn't matter to me. Just get rid of "credits", "deductions", and "exemptions" altogether.

Although that would practically kill an entire industry, require a bunch of IRS employees to be laid off, and eliminate about 90% of what congress does. So nevermind. Heaven forbid that happens.

I really need to start crunching numbers to determine the feasibility of reducing the gov'ts expenditures through private industry without any gov't interaction.

Read the Fair Tax book - seeing you type up a bit of how you think, I think that you would enjoy it. I'd send you my copy if I could find it, missing in various moves. Essentially the argument is those that work with taxes are number crunches and could find work as book keepers, CPA's for investment firms, etc. There is a lot of industry surrounding taxes, and even the 3 CPA's who are clients of mine outright say they would have no trouble making a living even if taxes were thrown out the window. That's not to say it wouldn't be relatively painful to transition - but the tax code as it stands today is ridiculous, both in unfairness and in the ability for any one person to understand it.

[SirFuego]

Although I don't 100% agree with him on everything, my views are probably more in line with him than any other candidate. I know I'll never agree 100% of a candidates views. Honestly, my disagreements are either on (a) very minor issues to me or (b) specific bullet points. He of course is a lot more knowledgeable than I am, so it's very possible that once/if I get a better understanding of how things are, my views could change anyways.

[Super Scout]

Somethings about him scare me, something I don't think he could ever do in reality, but I think as a whole I agree with him on a lot of things. Also I feel that Obama, Romney, Newt, are all just slight variations of the status quo. Paul is like throwing a brick in the punch bowl everyone is going to notice.

[SirFuego]

Read the Fair Tax book - seeing you type up a bit of how you think, I think that you would enjoy it. I'd send you my copy if I could find it, missing in various moves. Essentially the argument is those that work with taxes are number crunches and could find work as book keepers, CPA's for investment firms, etc. There is a lot of industry surrounding taxes, and even the 3 CPA's who are clients of mine outright say they would have no trouble making a living even if taxes were thrown out the window. That's not to say it wouldn't be relatively painful to transition - but the tax code as it stands today is ridiculous, both in unfairness and in the ability for any one person to understand it.
Yeah I definitely have been meaning to get more up to speed on that stuff, but I have so many other interests that I don't get to learn about everything I want to.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the impact to those people who work in the tax industry would be minimal and be able to easily adapt to a different, bu related, job. My sarcastic comment about that just goes back to the whole long term/short term tradeoff that most folks/politicians aren't willing to make.

I know this isn't the right attitude to take, but the only way to "change the game" is to "play the game". That's something that I don't know I'd be willing to do. My "true" views would not make me an electable candidate -- and I really don't know if I'm willing to misrepresent myself intentionally just to get elected. Not to mention that I don't have anywhere near the capital or namesake to play the game either.

Hence why I'm trying to think outside the box for ways to re-shape the gov't without actually being involved in the gov't. I know I mentioned my "Compromise Party" (which is a bit more of a direct approach) before on this site. This is my most recent rambling on another idea for those that aren't MC regulars:
http://mallcrawlin.com/forum/showthread.php?24628-Some-voter-information&p=328845&viewfull=1#post328845

(http://mallcrawlin.com/forum/showthread.php?24628-Some-voter-information&p=328845&viewfull=1#post328845)

[SirFuego]

Somethings about him scare me, something I don't think he could ever do in reality, but I think as a whole I agree with him on a lot of things. Also I feel that Obama, Romney, Newt, are all just slight variations of the status quo. Paul is like throwing a brick in the punch bowl everyone is going to notice.

In the last gubernatorial election here in NY, we had a candidate like that on the Republican ticket. Problem was that he was a loose cannon and felt very strongly about some very sensitive issues that turned a lot of people away from him.

I seriously think that there needs to be that brick thrown in the punch bowl, but I don't think that anyone willing to throw the brick will ever be invited to the party.

The way I look at presidential candidates is this -- take a look at the current presidents policies as well as the proposed policies of the new candidate. The actual policies that will be implemented by the new candidate will end up somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of the way in either direction depending who has control in Congress and how extreme the views actually are.

[DixieJeeper]

To take the thread back a few posts;
In VA it is not only an "At will' employment state like PA- where you or the employer can terminate employment at anytime for anyreason- it is also a "right to work" state- where you do not have to join a union or federation. (not to begin another union topic) IMO I think this shows the state's overall practice of siding ever so slightly on the side of commerece rather than individual rights.

In VA when you are terminated they have to notify the employment comission if you were downsized, laid off (with expected call back), position eliminated, resigned/self terminated, or fired. If you are fired you get 0 benifits you also don't get benes if you self terminate, its harder also to collect parital if you are working but not impossible. The guys here in the shop about 3/4 of them filed for partial last week all online checked some boes and got their cards in the mail today. I know they DO need it but it seems in PA they hand the cash out fast- representative of the overall political culture.

[OverkillZJ]

Sounds like the state is siding with commerce to the effect that running a business is easier, thereby promoting more jobs.

I cannot even describe how difficult it is to run a business beyond simple being "self employed." Laws and unions which politicians claim help the "little guy" simply make us want to not-hire, not-expand, and do anything we can to not-deal-with-the-BS. I have enough upcoming issues with hiring with obama-care coming down the line, I can't imagine throwing unions and the like into the mix.