Someone correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Hillary Clinton proposal was $500 Billion for Infrastructure vs $275 Billion. I think Trains made a mistake or else they are correct in a very narrow sense. I believe part of the Clinton proposal was that the remaining $225 Billion would be drawn in private money vs taxpayer funds. I seem to remember long ago that her proposal was $500 Billion and roughly 50% Taxpayer funds and 50% Private Money which seemed to me at the time to be kind of copying Indiana's success with Infrastructure investment.
Anyone, am I right or reading this wrong?
Facts and figures do tend to fluctuate over time, especially during an election cycle and when it's being translated, filtered, and presented through multiple media outlets. As of today, here are just a few of the mentions to be found, and they all indicate $275 billion.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/30/clinton-infrastructure-plan-builds-tomorrows-economy-today/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/hillary-clinton-100-day-pledge-infrastructure-plan/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-makes-a-big-push-on-infrastructure-1470433942
Bruce,
Your first link actually says $500 Billion in total in the paragraph after the one you highlighted...........see, that is what I am referring to. In the article in Trains it is listed as $275 billion ignoring the private money to be attracted by a infrastructure bank whereas Trumps is listed as $1 trillion which, given that Pence is his running mate from Indiana more than likely includes private money. So the two figures in the article seem to be not comparably similar to me.
I guess where I am confused is the article just showing taxpayer cost comparison between the two candidates or total size of the expected infrasture investments? Again I am not 100% sure Trumps proposal is entirely funded by tax dollars I think he took a similiar approach that Hillary did (comingling tax and private funds) but not sure and there is really not enough detail to know for sure I don't think.
Politics!!!
Any numbers thrown around in campaigns are meaningless. It never happens the way it is proposed, and probably should not be. After all Congress must instigate legislation for any such proposals to become action.
Gotcha. I see that buried $500B figure. Does deserve a bit more explanation by the intredid Trains news reporter(s).
Bruce Kelly Gotcha. I see that buried $500B figure. Does deserve a bit more explanation by the intredid Trains news reporter(s).
Yes, also if you Google Trump said he would double whatever Hillary offered, so if Trumps proposal is 1 Trillion then Hillary's has to be $500 billion. If Hillary's proposal is $275 billion then Trumps is closer to $500 billion..........that was the game the Trump campaign was playing with the press at the time.
But Trump has stuck with $1 Trillion even though the media is reporting he promised $500 billion......so the confusion on my part and I can see how Trains would make a mistake.
I can't follow the numbers here on what is private / public or how certain $25 Billion seed money from taxpayers will result in $225 Billion in private money or how Trump will replicate on a larger scale.........all undefined. So perhaps that is why they are sticking with $275 Billion as it is concrete??? Beats me.
Here is the information from Clinton's webpage, although I believe it was a link.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
diningcar Politics!!! Any numbers thrown around in campaigns are meaningless. It never happens the way it is proposed, and probably should not be. After all Congress must instigate legislation for any such proposals to become action.
It is that time when every four years we are awash in Political Bovine Excrement....Every politician is 'shoveling' for all their worth, and counting on the public having the retention and attention time of gnat.
It seems we are reduced to making our picks as to whom we like as an office holder candidate, not by a process of natural slection; but by chance, similar to an errant bar room dart throw...
JPS1Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes.
I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax.
Commerical Leases are NOT anything LIKE residential leases. Which is a fact most readers here might not understand. With a Commercial retail space lease your responsible for a lot more of the upkeep and maintenance of the building than you are with a residential lease and it is listed as seperate line items on your commerical lease. Residential lease you only pay one lump sum in most cases and thats it. Commerical Lease there were in my case at least 7-8 line items I had to pay in addition to the leased space.
With my lease I was paying for heat and AC, some mall improvements, mall marketing, security protection, percentage of profits above a specific level, fines if I broke their hours and days open requirements, garbage disposal and pickup, etc, etc.
CMStPnPJPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax.
Some people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?"
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm CMStPnP JPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax. Some people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?"
CMStPnP JPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax.
Corporations resist tax increases because even though they can pass taxes through to the end consumer, it is not without penalty to the corporation. Every time a corporation passes a new tax through, it raises the price to the end consumer. Every time a consumer is confronted with a price increase, they either reduce their consumption or seek a lower cost alternative.
It makes no difference to the consumer whether the price increase is solely at the discretion of the corporation or the result of passing through a tax increase.
In a general, but consistent way, unless the end-user/customer is the only one left holding the bag, so-to-speak, a business can't sustain itself. It MUST pass on its costs, including expecations of profits, to the customer.
The reason that corporations can pass the cost of a tax increase on to their consumers is that the tax increase is a universal mandate that falls evenly on all corporations. Therefore the competition between corporations does not hinder the price increase because all corporations must do it together.
For example, if the government decided to levy a new tax on just one widget maker, they could not pass the added cost to the consumers because the consumers of higher priced widgets would just shift to the other widget makers with the lower price.
But all of this does not mean that the corporations get a free ride. Corporations can certainly be driven out of business by a tax increase.
I would opine that corporations and individuals have similar issues.
If I have no assets, I have nothing to write off. If I have plenty of money, and thus plenty of assets, I can start writing them off and thus reduce my tax bill.
Thus a multi-billion dollar company has plenty of assets to depreciate, and other things to write off, and can afford the people needed to document them.
A small corporation likely has neither.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
schlimmSome people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?" A
I would argue that yes sales tax is a pass through because I would buy the food ingredients tax exempt, so only the value add is being taxed via reduced profit for sales tax. Pretty much wholesale to restaurants of fresh produce is cheaper than COSTCO or Walmart so I would even argue the value add part is probably covered as well.
Property Taxes and Income taxes reduce profit though I would argue that Property Taxes have to be paid regardless of profit or loss so it is the more onerous of the two and any and I mean any business improvement that you do, will increase your property taxes by the increase in value of the improvement and this includes new seating booths, new point of sale terminals, etc. You have to refresh a restaurant internally with new equipment and furnishings every 7-10 years or your look becomes dated and your appliance breakdowns start to really cost serious money.
I can dodge part of my income taxes via bookeeping slights. I never did that and always kept to 100% CPA rules but the previous owner of my restaurant put both his cars on his P&L as business expenses (yes it is illegal), and he also took cash out of the register for him and his wife and wrote it off as food losses or comps.
If you ever buy a small business it is almost impossible to tell how much they really make in profit as quite a bit of small businessmen are cheating AND I don't want to come across as racist here but buying a small business in the United States is a method of skipping to the front of the line with becomming a U.S. Citizen. So hence you see a lot of small business people in the restaurant and retail category, that should not be there......first generation immigrants and in their home countries corruption was the rule of the day and some of them brought the bad habits with them. We as a country should screen that hole a little more with our reformed immigration plans.
So what you have when you buy a small business is claimed P&L that is probably partly BS and you have to go through it with a CPA along with watching the business for a couple of weeks to see how honest the guy is. When the seller is reluctant to share financial info with you (heard every excuse in the book)........you know they are attempting to scam you and it is a good screening mechanism but some scam artists even slip through that net.
Whoops, went off the rails on this discussion.
Euclid schlimm CMStPnP JPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax. Some people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?" Corporations resist tax increases because even though they can pass taxes through to the end consumer, it is not without penalty to the corporation. Every time a corporation passes a new tax through, it raises the price to the end consumer. Every time a consumer is confronted with a price increase, they either reduce their consumption or seek a lower cost alternative. It makes no difference to the consumer whether the price increase is solely at the discretion of the corporation or the result of passing through a tax increase.
My question was obviously a rhetorical one.
schlimm Euclid schlimm CMStPnP JPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax. Some people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?" Corporations resist tax increases because even though they can pass taxes through to the end consumer, it is not without penalty to the corporation. Every time a corporation passes a new tax through, it raises the price to the end consumer. Every time a consumer is confronted with a price increase, they either reduce their consumption or seek a lower cost alternative. It makes no difference to the consumer whether the price increase is solely at the discretion of the corporation or the result of passing through a tax increase. My question was obviously a rhetorical one.
Okay. I thought the point of your rhetorical question was to refute the claim by some people that "businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user." My point was that business still feels the burden of the tax increase and that is why they spend money to fight it.
Euclid schlimm Euclid schlimm CMStPnP JPS1 Second, businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. I had to pay property taxes on personal property within a leased commerical mall space and it came to approx $5000.00 a year for one Fast Casual Submarine Sandwich Shop. Additionally, payroll taxes, unemployment tax and sales tax. Some people claim businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user (customer) in what you charge them. That is certainly true of sales tax, and maybe for property taxes, etc. but I think it's debatable for income taxes. I always ask people who claim this, "OK, then why do corporations spend millions to reduce their income taxes and pay millions more for lobbyists to create loopholes is the tax code?" Corporations resist tax increases because even though they can pass taxes through to the end consumer, it is not without penalty to the corporation. Every time a corporation passes a new tax through, it raises the price to the end consumer. Every time a consumer is confronted with a price increase, they either reduce their consumption or seek a lower cost alternative. It makes no difference to the consumer whether the price increase is solely at the discretion of the corporation or the result of passing through a tax increase. My question was obviously a rhetorical one. Okay. I thought the point of your rhetorical question was to refute the claim by some people that "businesses are not the ultimate payor of those taxes, as they believe they are passed on to the end user." My point was that business still feels the burden of the tax increase and that is why they spend money to fight it.
Um, that's the same thing.
People pay corporate taxes in one of three ways: as shareholders who get a lower return on their investment, as workers who receive lower wages, or as consumers who pay higher prices.
Some economists believe that capital and labor bear the whole burden; others believe some of the burden is passed through to the corporation’s customers. Who pays corporate taxes is controversial.
Corporations manage their tax liabilities for the same reason individuals do. To pay the lowest possible tax and, therefore, minimize the tax burden on shareholders, workers and/or customers.
How much a corporation's tax department costs varies widely. A large international corporation may have hundreds of tax specialists in their tax department and numerous outside consultants.
Corporate taxation is a complex subject made even more so because of the international reach of many large corporations. One thing is clear. Corporations don’t pay taxes.
The point about whether a corporation pays taxes is similar to the point about whether an employer pays half of an employee’s social security tax.
BOB WITHORNCMStPnP is dead on with retail/commercial. You really don't have anyplace to go for most tax increases and as a small business, you do pay a much higher percentage of your total income than a large one does. In a captive retail location there is some room to adjust for some of the 'new' taxes with a higher sell price. You can raise the price of a 'T' shirt from $18.95 to $19.95 and not have a huge falloff, (we did that and survived for a while). But, in a small wholesale industrial supply business there is no where to go, (unless you are the only guy in town and there is no internet service). How many of you buy stuff from an online company like Amazon or Uline? Excellent customer service, quick ship, typically in-stock and often higher price. If your a small business your paying more tax than the large public corps. as they have far more opportunities to offset. In our first 20 years,(industrial), we grew from $0 to about $5 mil. per year and were netting about 3 1/2%. In the mid 1990's the gov't. became our biggest 'shareholder' and the net dropped to just about 2%, same sales, same margin, so "someone" had there hand in the cookie jar. Our prices went up, sales went down. Start the 2000's and we get the internet in full bloom. There is no longer a way to raise a price and the Gov't isn't interested in your dilemma, especially when Michigan elects Gov. 'Barbie', sorry Gov. Granholm. Result, after 40+ years, four retail stores, (very small ones), a lift truck sales and service company, (a small one), and a small (large to us, 21 employees) industrial supply company, they win, I QUIT. They can have 100% of the tax that the non-existent company produces. El Trumpo and Hitlerie can pretend they can find all kinds of 'NEW' money and you can stick your head... in a cloud... and believe anything you wish, but it still comes down to they will raise taxes and prices will go up because the money WILL come from the small private companies. Sorry, back to my padded room.
Here is what shocked me the most about the Commercial Lease and Franchisee behavior that just convinced me to exit out ASAP. Spoke with Mall Management on me instituting home delivery and on the spot mall delivery (for mall workers) that ordered over the Internet. Here is what I ran into:
1. Mall says HELL NO to reserved space by my back door for Catering or Delivery Van loading. Instead I would have to walk the hot food a fairly substantial distance over an open parking lot. Further overflowing garbage dumpster in parking lot is not their issue it's more a tenant not using the compactor and city issue which is providing the dumpster. Not their problem some restaurants are holding garbage in their establishments overnight (gross). Needless to say I spent some considerable freetime working the compactor on the dumpster and getting my garbage in it, which I wasn't compensated for. Problem was compactor would overload and nobody knew how to reset it except a very few people I made a Mall maintenence employee show me how. Other mall lessees.....too lazy, would rather heap trash and garbage around a not functioning compactor (that only needed to be reset).
2. Franchisee says SO WHAT that their vendor's Internet capabilities suck and again restates that they do not generally support delivery or catering but would rather have clients come into the restaurant to eat. Equally clueless on advising what containers are best for catering or keeping food warm. Catering, Delivery and Internet Ordering are my problem they state.
3. Despite their lack of any help, both want a cut in on the gross revenue above $480k with an increasing percentage above that amount (ie: they are getting rewarded for my hard work). I calculate I'm at $400k annually without any Catering business and without Internet ordering capability or Mall Delivery. Can probably use both to increase over time to $600-650k annually, which would take me to marginally profitable with the ablity to manage absentee. To be really profitable and pay what everyone wants I need either a second location or a gross of $750k. Not smart to expand to second location unless the first is very successful because your only increasing the headache.
I'll say this though I am not turned off by owning and running a business and will do it again before or after retirement but the second time will make some minor changes (no commercial leases, no franchisors.......just me with a concept and perhaps some like minded employees).
With many (not all) franchises, you are paying a lot and in return, only get brand name recognition, which may be of only limited value.
schlimm With many (not all) franchises, you are paying a lot and in return, only get brand name recognition, which may be of only limited value.
True they do provide some field support though with their POS systems and advising me how to run the place. The so called Franchise Consultant that was in charge of advising me, allegedly him and his family owned and operated 11 McDonalds locations. I have to tell you though his suggestions were mostly worthless and idiotic and as soon as he suggested they went into the mental trash can in my head. I mentioned to the Franchisor as I signed the termination agreement they need to hire Franchise Consultants that actually have run a location and have a track record of success with the company they are working for.
One of his ideas to bring in revenue faster........sell Cookies for $1 a piece. You don't have to be a genius to figure out in your head they have to be really great cookies and fairly large size at that price OR you need to make them yourself for that idea to work at that price. Smarter to raise the price of drinks and fries....which I did, nobody really noticed and no drop in sales.
Depending on your volume, even a 10 cent increase on items can dramatically improve your net.
CMStPnPI'll say this though I am not turned off by owning and running a business and will do it again before or after retirement but the second time will make some minor changes (no commercial leases, no franchisors.......just me with a concept and perhaps some like minded employees).
It sounds to me as though you know 110% of what is necessary to write an effective franchise OS in your target market, including what is appropriate for private franchisees to 'value-add' to the concept without interfering with the core brand values and perception.
You also have the practical experience and 'tips and tricks' to teach people that are the real value of the early part of a franchise relationship.
One point: if you have set the business up correctly the cost and risk of 'expanding to a second location' is probably far less than just opening up two separate restaurants -- and the additional volume and shared overhead, etc. may well make two very successful where middle expenses and the like make only one operation look barely over break-even.
Part of the art of commercial leasing is negotiation, and most commercial lessors are not willing to give a fair deal unless you practically force them into it. That is part of the reason I went into buying investment property for office space long ago; the only problem is that unless you're a partner in malls or centers you have to develop a whole building or even PUD in order to get many of the kinds of space you need. (Note that this is the approach the Waffle House has used for many years; they buy space away from 'key corners' and rely on their brand and signage for traffic... but they own every location they build.)
RMEPart of the art of commercial leasing is negotiation, and most commercial lessors are not willing to give a fair deal unless you practically force them into it. That is part of the reason I went into buying investment property for office space long ago; the only problem is that unless you're a partner in malls or centers you have to develop a whole building or even PUD in order to get many of the kinds of space you need. (Note that this is the approach the Waffle House has used for many years; they buy space away from 'key corners' and rely on their brand and signage for traffic... but they own every location they build.)
I agree.
Well what happened in my case which was pretty fortunate and also at the same time fairly funny. The guy that sold the business to me, his lease ran out and he got the Mall to stupidly sign a letter that he was free and clear. But what happened was they let me in without signing a perm lease only with a letter of intent. The letter of intent was so poorly written and the lease that they wanted me to sign at the point of the letter of intent was so illegible my lawyer said I didn't have to pay them any rent for the time I ran the business or occupied their space. However it was his advice I make a good faith payment for each month based on what I felt was fair so that they didn't attempt a counter suit to collect (which my lawyer said would eventually fail but he did not want to see me having to pay court costs).
What happened is the original owner disappeared after I paid him for the business (as in no forwarding address). So the mall could not go back to him and collect, they couldn't really demand that I pay because I never signed a lease. So I had them in a fairly good negotiating position on what my future lease would be. What happened is like you stated above, they started playing games with the lease terms basically rearranging terms of the lease to make it look like they were cutting me a break when they weren't (trying to run out the clock or produce legal fees for me). After 6 months of that I told them, I had enough, I am pulling out and liquidating the restaurant. Then the mall lease guy calls me and capitulates to my terms entirely and says: "He will ask the Mall parent company to issue the lease on the terms I asked for but he couldn't guarantee they would listen". I told him I wasn't going to buy in on a "maybe" and I told them I was tired of waiting and paying legal fees to analyze each offer they made. Franchisor then attempted to step in and told me I was being unreasonable. I countered with, you can have the restaurant for $1 if you can sell it in a month under the lease terms the Mall is offering. They were just floored, what a great deal for them they said. A month came and went and after 4-5 perspective buyers that all said NO. I told the Franchisor. OK, so I don't want to ever hear again how I am being unreasonable because you yourselves could not sell the place at a fire sale price given the malls lease terms. So that tells you something right?
So I liquidated and shut the place down. Left the Franchisor on good terms but I am pretty sure the Mall that tried to screw me on the lease......doesn't like me. One sign of that dislike was they changed the locks on the doors to the restaurant and posted a guard so I could not liquidate. Attorney called them up and told them they had no legal basis for that without a signed lease and I was entitled to liquidate. So the mall is still PO'd I am sure. And there is still a vacant storefront where my restaurant used to be. If they had dealt with me honestly, maybe I would still be there.
Retail and restaurant trade are tough. Most fail within a few years.
I'm sure everyone knows the first rule in how to make a small fortune in the restaurant business....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.