It was $250K including a business....
Posted By: dnh on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: GET REAL if you make over 250 thou AFTER DEDUCTIONS you are RICH! NM - sm
and $250K for a business is nothing. and since when is rich a bad word. Only when someone is jealous.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
we had a small business, you deduc everything including the kit sink! sm
coming out 250K after deductions you are sitting pretty. Deductions include payroll, etc. You are the owner of a company and with clear earnings after deductions of 250K you are better off than the majority of families in the US.
are you including yourself?
nm
You are correct for once...including the
x
I have not defended anybody, but since nobody knows the facts,including you,
s
Kenya has no business in the business of the U.S.
I may be an idjit myself and I am certainly the most cynical of the cynical. While I'm about it, I think Obama's mom was a bit of an idjit for making the decisions she made in life but I guess that was her business.
As for GWB, he certainly does deserve some discussion. Like why did he not straight away pardon those 2 border patrol agents who were the target of the worst miscarriage of justice I have personally ever seen? Could there be something synister there? I think so.
I am most certainly NOT a liberal and by the heart of conservatives, I am NOT a conservative either. I do agree with them (if they really believe it) that abortion and gay marriage are wrong. HOWEVER, my opinion being stated, I believe those are moral issues and as such belong to God and not the government. I also do not believe God requires my assistance in passing judgement on them.
Soooo....with all the problems we were facing, t here are many more important issues than Obama's birth certificate. I drug my feet in voting for Obama but I do have a glimmer of hope that he is working to at least get some plan in place for the day he is inaugerated. Everyone deserves a chance. The American people have spoken so it's time to put this b/c nonissue to rest and get to the business of importance...like millions of people projected to be unemployed and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, which if something isn't done and soon we are headed for the worst times most of you have ever seen and you'll have enough to worry about just wondering how you're going to put food on the table.
The Patriot Act is up but some want to keep it, including Schumer. Don't blame Bush for that. nm
Here's the brief filed in court by several media agencies...including
Was Valerie Plame covert?What's curious is that lawyers representing 36 media organizations argued she wasn't in this amici curiae brief submitted to the US District Court.
(page ii) "In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate."
And further
(ppg 30,31) "Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington — not not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."
And further
(pg 31) Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has disclosed information which names, or leads directly to the identification of...a covert agent." S. Rep. 97-201, at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication. If this information is accurate - another fact a court should explore - there is an absolute defense to prosecution. See 50 U.S.C. § 422(a).
And WHO was one of the media outlets who filed this brief? OMG, say it isn't so....CBS. The same ones who are now trotting Plame out to say she WAS covert.
What a crock, reveille. Really!!
You have it wrong nawnaw. That is including Bush cuts. nm
nm
I have a whole set of cast iron including the dutch oven
As for electric for the fridge, we have a generator we can use if necessary but it gets cold enough here that we can store our food outside. Ah, the good old days. 
Since you're having this conversation with yourself, including my side of it, pray continue.
X
the $250K
it's the business making $250K, not the man. Big difference.
MTs make under $250K
Just because plumbing seems like a crappy job, let's face it, I see those guys driving Jaguars where I live. They are expensive and make a lot. MTs work very hard for very little. Wise up people. Obama is our hope. All the BS about him being with terrorists is dangerous propaganda. That board who had Ayers and Obama on was a big Reagan supporter and actually the Anenbergs are McCain supporters so it's all crapola. Obama is a wonderful man and a smart man. McCain stutters and whistles through his teeth, clears his throat loudly. I thought he was rude in the debate. The losers usually feel desperate and he shows it.
He later corrected to $250K
He knows the middle class. I'm sure you make under $250K so why are you splitting hairs?
He never said that he made over $250K
He said that he wanted to buy a business that he thought made over $250K. I thought that it was okay to have dreams. How do you know what his intentions are? Even if he were a plant--which I think is silly--he is a citizen and ultimately has a right to propose a hypothetical question to someone asking for his vote to be the leader of our country. If he is attacked in this manner, should we not all fear what will happen if we say anything bad about Obama or ask a question that makes him look bad once he is--if he is--elected?
they changed that $250K...
Now they're saying more like $200K and going lower. And let's just face it. 20 bucks or $200K, everybody is gonna pay more taxes.
I understand the payroll tax on only over $250K....sm
I understand I won't pay more payroll tax and income tax at our low income, but it's the property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes that are going to go up too, and being landowners and ranchers raising livestock, those taxes affect us big time and just add to the cost of our business, which already is hard to make a profit on.
I know it's hard for people whose income is from a job where you go to work and bring home a paycheck and taxes are simple to understand. But running a business isn't just about how much comes out of your paycheck for payroll tax and what you pay for income tax once a year. These corporate taxes he's talking about are going to affect so many small businesses because most of them make between $500,000-$1,000,000 a year, and increasing their tax rates is going to kill them. It's going to cause them to lay off employees, raise their prices, or simply close their doors.
I have several family members with mom-and-pop business in small towns from a beauty salon to a restaurant and a small computer fix-it business and they will really be hurt by this. They can't raise their prices because people in their small town can't afford to pay higher prices.
There are a lot of big farmers in our area who easily make over $250,000 a year, but what people don't realize is that probably 90-95% of what they sell their crops for has to go into planting and harvesting those crops and they have little to actually live on to pay their heating and food bills, etc., when it's all said and done, so where are they going to come up with the extra tax money?
By sticking it to the big corporate business, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage in the wake and those are going to be the small to mid-sized business of our friends and family. They need to raise the amount to 1-2 million or something because this is going to kill small town main street. JMHO
Oh, and BTW, $250K is not wealthy businesses
They're middle of the road, just making it businesses. They don't employ 3000 people like big business and they will be hurt the most. Big business will pass the tax increase onto the taxpayers. They'll be able to find loopholes with their 30+ laywers (exageration) who are paid to do that.
Wake up and take the blinders off!
If you make less than $250K you get tax break nm
nomopopo
Sorry Sam, but the Bush cuts were only for those over $250K nm
not us peons
Not unless I am making over 250K and that's not happening. nm
.
I never said I made $250K a year... where did you get that from my post?...sm
Actually, I work one full-time MT job and a part-time general transcription off and on. I make less than $38,000 a year. My husband is self-employed (we own a ranch) and everything we make from the sale of our livestock and grains has to go back into the operation of the ranch for property taxes, insurance, feed, equipment, repairs, so at best, we break even, and even that doesn't happen often. So we basically live on what I make as an MT, which is less than $38,000 a year.
Yes, it can be done. We do not apply for, nor take any of the government subsidies. We've worked hard and scrimped and saved, and have also sold aluminum cans to help with extra cash coming in, etc. I've always shopped thrift shops for clothes for us and the kids, I've never bought new furniture, have no china or crystal, and the only jewelry I've ever owned was my wedding ring, so couldn't fall back on having the option of selling things such as these to help out.
We've actually been rather comfortable with this and have always felt like we weren't missing out on anything by living a very simple and quiet life. But now I'm afraid we're going to lose what we've worked so hard for because we can't afford any more taxes to pay for those who won't work hard.
I could go on disability due to some physical problems and inability to do probably 99% of jobs out there, but my physical disability doesn't keep me from doing MT work, and I can make a decent living doing that, so why not? If at some point in my life something happens that I can no longer do MT, then I'll have no choice but go on disability because I can't stand/walk/move around in order to get most other jobs out there, but for now I have a choice to work doing something I can do, and I choose to do that.
Most people I know on disability have other skills and could be doing other jobs, but they'd rather take the label of disabled and never work again. I choose to work at what I can do until I can't do it anymore.
I know one gal who was on disability and was offered a great job that paid over $2000 a month, but she would lose her disability, so didn't take the job... when I asked her how much her disability was, it was only $1300 a month! Duh... And the thing is, she would be great in that position and would have been a wonderful asset to the community doing that job. Just didn't make sense to me.
I feel for your situation and I don't think that things like your disabled child being on SSI or whatever is ''on the dole'' because those are exactly the people we as fellow Americans need to be helping. I'm sorry for your health situation and that is most tragic as it can happen to anyone.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who have no major health problems, no job, but could get a job if they wanted to, but welfare pays better, so they don't. My daughter works in a field where she sees daily where parents are dropping kids off at a daycare which is paid for through the social services office, and they go sit in the casino and gamble and smoke cigarettes. How much is a pack of smokes these days, $5? That's $150 a month that could pay for heating your house, putting food on your table, etc., but they don't need the money for those things because they are on programs to get those paid for too.
I'm not pointing a finger at you or people who have real problems and can't work, it's the abusers of the system that I'm upset about. I know of one couple who just a few years ago traveled on a vacation to Tokyo and got to leave their five adopted children with a foster care service absolutely free. This woman used to complain that she only got 15 hours a week of ''respite'' babysitting service.... I raised my kids and probably never had 15 hours total away from them in all the years they grew up as I didn't have family around where I lived and couldn't afford a babysitter. This particular family drives new vehicles, has memberships to clubs, eat out all the time as it's too hard for the mom to cook for so many people, etc., and they have no jobs or any other income. How do they do that?
Again, I'm just saying, we have always made as much as we could and spent as little as we could get by with and were perfectly happy that it balanced out enough that we could live on our own without having to take any freebies from anybody, and if we have to pay more taxes in the future, that balance is going to be upset, and I don't want to lose what we've worked so hard for.
I don't know which candidate is going to be able to do anything about our healthcare situation, but I believe your medical situation is a prime example of how the messed up healthcare industry is bringing decent people down and something needs to be done about it... But I can't afford my own medical care, how can you expect me to pay for everyone else's?
Holycrap! You make more than 250K a year!
How did you do that with MT jobs?
I wouldn't mind making 250K and paying
25% in taxes....
Bidens words - no longer $250K - Now $150K (nm)
x
"Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k"...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$10,581
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$10,581
|
$1,350
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$8,293
|
$6,796
|
$6,781
|
$8,293
|
$1,512
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$11,143
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$11,143
|
$1,912
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$9,424
|
$8,189
|
$8,094
|
$9,424
|
$1,330
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$17,923
|
$15,739
|
$15,620
|
$17,923
|
$2,303
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$15,293
|
$12,364
|
$12,219
|
$15,293
|
$3,074
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$18,803
|
$16,083
|
$15,972
|
$18,803
|
$2,831
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$16,424
|
$14,439
|
$14,344
|
$16,424
|
$2,080
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$25,673
|
$22,739
|
$22,620
|
$25,673
|
$3,053
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$22,293
|
$18,614
|
$18,469
|
$22,293
|
$3,824
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$27,515
|
$23,715
|
$23,504
|
$27,515
|
$4,011
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$23,699
|
$20,741
|
$20,594
|
$23,699
|
$3,015
|
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a DE facto tax increase
It is none of your business!
Mind your own business.
of course it's our business, she put herself in this
to be under a microscope.
I think that they will go out of business
when any baby boomer without insurance goes out and buys it once he/she has been diagnosed with cancer. Then, when your child needs insurance, there will be no money left to pay for him/her.
Should be NONE of YOUR business how many
nm
Gay is their business...whether or not it is a
nm
Why is that your business?
I am not being hateful or anything. I am just wondering why you consider their marriage or lack of your business?
but again - why is it your business?
If you don't like it, then don't participate in it. I don't believe that biblically gay is acceptable, but if they want to get married and live the married lifestyle, then it does not hurt me. I am not living their lifestyle and I am not participating in their lifestyle. That is their personal decision. It does not affect me or my familiy or my lifestyle one bit by what they do in their home.
I believe that we have much more important things to worry about than whether two gay people are "legally" married or not...
NO - IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS
I don't believe your story about 4 of your friends. Too much of a coincidence I would say. You might have just well said you had 12 or more friends who all went through the same thing.
Like the poster said above - until you walk in someone else's shoes mind your own business. People are not put on this earth to meddle in other people's lives (people you don't know) and get involved in things you have no idea about and try to push your viewpoints. News flash - your viewpoints are not always right.
Well, if you want to go into business of producing
vaccines I'll be right behind you cheering you on. If it's such an urgent matter then why don't you do it? Like I said, the government will give you a grant for doing it, but it won't even cover the costs of making the vaccines. Yeah, I'm sure you're ready to fill out that grant request first thing Monday morning.
I worded the vaccine statement wrong. I heard yesterday on the radio, when all the ADD and autism with flu shots was being discussed, the majority of vaccines are now being made overseas, because companies have to take a hit just to make them. THEY SAID that no smallpox vaccines were being made in the U.S. The government does not make it feasible NOR do they protect these companies from litigation.
Do you think the government needs to strong arm drug companies into making vaccines for little or no profit? If you do then you've shifted into a whole other political view.
Business politics
You nailed it when you said business. However, if a conservative had said the same thing you and Lurker just stated you would have disputed that. Liberals swear up and down Murdoch is a conservative Republican, but the truth is Murdoch is all about Murdoch and what sells. His politics is business.
I never dispute big business...sm
I know they rarely have the little guy in mind or stand on principals. Murdoch is down with the republican party right now, but he's thinking about '08 as it appears the tide is changing (bush ratings). He has told the Washington Post that he is not sure if he will back Hillary or McCain in '08. He's waiting to see how the tide rolls to see which propaganda his news engine will push.
That's her business and choice if she does, not yours.
Just because YOU wouldn't be able to handle children plus a job doesn't mean another woman wouldn't. Perhaps your energy or patience level isn't up to it, but I know plenty of women that have high-profile careers and young children and handle both beautifully. It's all about balance. Again, just because you might not be able to find that balance doesn't mean others can't.
What has Obama run by himself. What business?
nm
small business
Me and DH own a small recreation business, and quite frankly, a few years ago, when the gas prices started getting out of control is when our business started hurting. We are taxed individually, not as a corporation, so I don't see anything in O's tax plan that would hurt us. Maybe help us a bit. Most small business owners aren't making a large fortune, those are the big corporations who have so many dam@ loopholes anyway!
Besides the fact that as a new business...sm
owner does he really think he is right away going to have a $250,000 PROFIT anytime soon, if ever. Not likely.
Really who you vote for is your own business.
This way it keeps everyone happy. Being a dem myself and being raised by republican parents, I tend to be on the fence sometimes, but I still consider myself a dem voter. I'm no expert. Otherwise, I'd being doing something other than MT and posting on this board.
Your friends should appreciate the fact that it is a personal decision on your part. 
It becomes my business when they attempt to
Laws affect everyone. They don't want "rights"...they have rights. They just want to change laws to somehow prove they are legitimate, as if the fact they are human doesn't make them a legitimate human being already? I have every right to make it my business when they want to change the laws to suit their lifestyle.
OK, Now I KNOW I am in the wrong business. nm
nm
Anyone who runs a business knows there is
nm
If you are against abortion, that's your business, but...
You have got a lot of nerve comparing abortion to the Holocaust!
My morals are my business.
I am not interested in discussing my morals, especially with people who are trying to shove their morals and their religion down my throat. That's the whole point of my post. Keep your moral and religious beliefs to yourself!
A Better Business Model
If only all business owner's thought this way...
DENVER - Eleven-year FreeWave Technologies Inc. employee Melanie Duran says the wireless data radio maker is a great place to work. But you can judge for yourself.
The Boulder-based company says it has had profits every month since it hired its first employee in 1995. There have been no layoffs. Employees get company-funded retirement plans and bonuses based on profits and growth.
And there's more: As part of a $113 million private-equity investment deal in 2007, FreeWave is sharing $9 million of investors' money with its fewer than 100 employees as a reward for the company's success. Shares are divvied up based on individual performance. FreeWave refused to disclose individual payments.
The $9 million, for eligible employees who were with FreeWave when it won the investment, has been paid out in three installments. Company founders Steve Wulchin and Jonathan Sawyer are handing out the last payments Thursday.
"We're fortunate to have great bosses," said Duran, a production lead. The extra money is helping the 33-year-old close on buying her first house.
"This is something that in today's economy Steve and Jonathan don't have to do, and yet they've chosen to do it," said Tim Ake, a Navy veteran and production manager who has been with FreeWave for about five years. "That inspires me to go and do likewise," said Ake, who typically gives some of his bonuses to his church and to charity.
No business owner in their
Come on...paying back the employees that actually do the work that makes the company succeed?? Creating an atmosphere that makes the employees feel that they have made a contribution to the success of the company and acknowledging their contribution in a financial manner...that is so 1950's.
Do you own a business? If not, you don't have a clue
Small businesses are laying off right now DIRECTLY RELATED to Obama being in office. I personally know several small business owners in this town with anywhere from 50 to 200 employees and they are already laying off and anticipating laying off more BECAUSE of Obama's regulations which he is/will IMPOSE on small businesses, while all the while convincing O lovers such as yourself that job loss has absolutely nothing to do with him!
I know this for a fact! So don't be so quick to give your Obama a free pass.....
He is running this dog and pony show with disasterous results already!
You can't keep pointing your finger at Bush for the rest of Obama's term; Obama is directly responsible for ALL the mistakes he is now making.... why don't you hold him responsible???
I think we know the answer to that question, so never mind.
Then the poster should have kept her business to herself!
She murdered a baby and then comes on here with her little sob story and you boobs eat it up. Oh...you're so heroic ... oh... you're so brave.
Uh... no she's not. She's a baby killer. And if she wanted everyone to stay out of her business, she should have come on here and typed it out on a PUBLIC FORUM!!!!!!
I don't have to walk in a killer's shoes to know I'm not a killer.
If you do, then I pray for the safety of your neighbors. You're quite obviously unhinged.
None of your business, I can post
MY opinion to everything I want, as long as it is not against the rules of this forum.
You are not the owner or moderator of this forum, so do not overstep your boundaries.
|
