Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

for instance there are any number of individuals such as CEOs, actors, athle;tes and the like who make several millions of dollars a year, even as the government goes bankrupt. In most cases these individuals have signed contracts that entitle them to whatever money they receive, although this is subject to change under certain circumstances. At any rate, it would seem to me that someone who is making million or more a year could stand to have at least a mere million taken from their annual salary, and would likely not even feel the difference from this reduction. Moreover, a reduction of million from the salary of 1,000 such people would alone generate billion over the course of a year, which would take on a whole new meaning when multiplied several times. With that said, has no one considered the idea of garnering additional income from cuts such as the aforemetioned, with or without the addition of cuts from wasteful spending as it relates to entitlement programs and/or other programs? I just think that the salary cuts I have mentioned would have a much better chance of improving the economy with less of an impact on the American people in general.

As far as raising taxes, I am not sure if this is being considered by Obama as an alternate way of increasing revenue in light of the government bankruptcy, but the fact is that this will do no such thing, in fact it will more likely make things worse than they are currently. Small businesses for instance will lay people off or hire less due to having to pay more in taxes. Raising taxes will also likely cause inflation due to monietary manipulation in the event that things continue on this path.

Higher taxes on the business hurt the middle class most. When businesses have their taxes raised, they often are forced to cut back on expenses, which usually lead to layoffs. When small businesses are taxed at a higher rate, they often have to raise their prices just to maintain the same profits they were making prior to the higher taxes being implemented. When businesses that are just barely scraping by have their taxes raised, it could potentially force them to declare bankruptcy, thus having to layoff all their employees, and make their industry that less competitive. And given that the middle class consists of the majority of employees and consumers in this country, isn’t it clear the middle class is hurt most by increasing taxes on businesses? How am I wrong?
@ Small Peace – Where in my question did I ever mention the Saudi family, or healthcare? Stupid libtard.
@ Vern86 – The President just announced today that he wants to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” and those with “corporate jets.” And most Democrats in office favor raising the corporate tax rate to 1950’s levels. I agree with closing tax loopholes, but it must be met with a reduction of the corporate tax rate, otherwise our already overtaxed corporations (highest corporate tax rate in the world, around 40%) will suffer, thus the middle class suffers more.

To be the middle man between doctors and patients?

To tell us only healthy people can see a doctor?

Why do we need them?

Do they provide any service at all besides collecting money?

Are you old enough to remember when doctors were healers and not in medicine to collect as much money as possible from your insurance company before the company drops you for being sick?

Besides collecting money, what do insurance companies do?

And don’t say they help cover the high cost, the main reason for personal bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. These are people who had insurance, but were dropped because of major illness. So that’s not it. (this actually drives the costs up)

This country was built on small businesses, not on criminal big business that provides no service, no service at all.

Can you imagine a world in which all you have to worry about when you are seriously ill… is getting well?

Besides collecting money, what do insurance companies do?
Must see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI

The National Council of Small Businesses is interested in the proportion of small businesses that declared chapter 11 bankruptcy last year. Due to the fact there are so many small businesses in the country, the nation al Council intends to estimate the proportion from a random sample. Given that a preliminary pilot study found that 6 of 38 small businesses had declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, how many businesses should be included in the national councils sample if the y want to be 95% confident that their estimate is with 4% of the true proportion?

Please helppppp

The American Journal of Medicine says over 3 out of 5 personal bankruptcies are due to medical debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States).

Wouldn’t it be great on the economy to have Universal Healthcare? The UK spends only 8% of GDP on healthcare while the US spends 16% and still has to pay for insurance! Further, UK small businesses are not burdened with having to pay for employees insurance making them more competitive. As a Conservative, wouldn’t you agree that slashing federal spending on healthcare by 50% and decreasing costs for small business is a great idea?
Well, I am actually a medical insurance broker and I can tell you 1) prices are not set by governments, they’re set by the cost of medical care which is set by hospitals and 2) if people paid for healthcare through their taxes, non-payment wouldn’t be an issues unless the people were evading taxes which is another issue.
Capital: So are you saying that the published statistics that show every UHC country spends less GDP on healthcare are all lies? Every stat is wrong and you are right because you said so? Hmm…

are there enough regional, local and community institutions to step up and fill the void in terms of lending to consumers and small businesses?

Do Americans really buy the myth that if taxes are raised on Americans
making more than 0K/year that small businesses shall go out of
business?

It is extremely rare that any business operates on a razor-thin margin and
that an increase in its operating expense shall knock it out of business.

•Wholesale pricing can increase.
•Insurance can increase.
•Fines can increase.
•Expenses related to safety mandates can increase.
•Electric/oil/natural gas/water pricing can increase.

The point here is that all businesses are prepared for unexpected expenses.
No business is one expense away from collapse.
Such a business cuts its losses by shutting down, filing for bankruptcy or selling
out before going into a rut because it has been on a downward spiral for a while.
That’s what responsible business owners do anyway.
Irresponsible business owners…well they dig their own hole.

Are Americans really so naïve that they believe the tax-you-out-of-business myth?

Or are extremists just going along with it in order to spread fear about Obama’s
intensions to raise taxes on high earners in an attempt to bring their tax rate in line
with the rest of us (rather than maintaining their discounted tax rate via loopholes)?

For this problem, carry at least four digits after the decimal in your calculations. Answers may vary slightly due to rounding.

The National Council of Small Businesses is interested in the proportion of small businesses that declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year. Since there are so many small businesses, the National Council intends to estimate the proportion from a random sample. Let p be the proportion of small businesses that declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
(a) If no preliminary sample is taken to estimate p, how large a sample is necessary to be 98% sure that a point estimate will be within a distance of 0.09 from p? (Round your answer up to the nearest whole number.)
1 small businesses
***Answer is: 164
(b) In a preliminary random sample of 30 small businesses, it was found that eight had declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. How many more small businesses should be included in the sample to be 98% sure that a point estimate will be within a distance of 0.090 from p? (Round your answer up to the nearest whole number.)
part A is 168, not 164)

here is the question: The number of small businesses that declare bankruptcy per month is 6.4. Find the probability of at most 2 businesses going bankrupt over the course of the next 2 weeks.
I know the answer is .3799 but i can’t get to that answer. I don’t know which numbers to put in the poissoncdf function. feel free to elaborate on your answer. i need an explanation, not just an answer. thank you!!!

My Dad got laid off five years ago and since then he has started two small businesses. His businesses were doing well, and then the recession came along and now he is in a lot of debt. If he sold the house and his corvette he would still be in debt, but might eventually be able to pay it off. He believes that god would consider bankruptcy immoral because of Psalms 37:21. He is getting really riped off on selling the house, two years ago it was appraised at 5,000 and he is basically giving it away at 0,000. Do you think he is doing the right thing or he should go bankrupt?

i’ve been charged with violation NEW YORK PUBLIC SAFETY LAW 10-131,G,1 by selling 30 imitation firearms.
A silver-colored plastic gun and muzzle in red paint on color.
I consulted the wholesale sector, they told me that the item can be sold legally.I do not know if I am not innocent, because I do not understand the law, why the Government did not give small businesses the law made the manual.
The most i would like to know about whichs how much money will be fined? I do not know why small businesses will be selected,Now the economy is so depressed and my business is getting worse every day are at a loss, too much to pay if I can only apply for a bankruptcy.
I would like to know what can or should i do next?
To find a lawyer or directly to The Legal Services Division Center?

I know it makes me sound uneducated; but how does this Private Sector, John Boner keeps talking about actually get Money

I know most Republicans use the Sub Prime Loan Business to get Money But what about all these Small Businesses that never have customers. How do they get Money
I see Yahoo is Censoring and Blocking the name of the Minority Leader of the US House of Representitives. Did someone actually Pay Yahoo to do that.

as soon as possible. Do you agree or disagree?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1066

It has been months now since the new healthcare reform bill was passed into law. As is so typical, this massive piece of legislation was passed with a sense of urgency so acute that leadership declared America could not afford to wait until legislators, their staff and the general public had time to thoroughly read the bill.

The truth comes out eventually, however. Much like the recently discovered exemption from Freedom of Information Act requirements for the SEC that was slipped into the equally massive and "urgent" financial reform bill, we are finally seeing what other insidiousness has been hiding in the fine print of the healthcare reform bill. It seems that all provisions in this poorly written and poorly conceived monstrosity need to be repealed as soon as possible.

One such disaster-waiting-to-happen is one of the revenue generating provisions used to claim that the healthcare reform bill was "paid for". billion in additional tax revenues is supposed to come from an onerous new IRS reporting requirement that any taxpayer with business income who spends over 0 in one year with one business will have to report those expenditures to the IRS. Mind you, this is a cumulative total of 0 in transactions in one year. This will involve so much extra accounting and paperwork that the IRS claims it will be unable to deal with it effectively, and even the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (to whom it should be a boon) has come out against it! Apparently they realize they will actually lose customers, especially small businesses, to bankruptcy because of this!

Gold dealers are especially alarmed by this provision, as most of their transactions easily top 0. This represents a significant outlay of time and paperwork and no additional revenue for businesses with which to hire people. Not to mention this makes every business a de facto IRS agent, as if they didn’t have enough to worry about already!

Of course, there is a tremendous outcry against this. Several other legislators also see how unreasonable this is and are trying to repeal it. However, this would simply mean that billion in healthcare funding will have to come from somewhere else, and there are no good options. Taxes from some other equally bad collection scheme? Borrowing and more debt? Creating more money from thin air and adding to inflationary pressures?

The best answer, of course, would be to repeal the entire health care law, along with all other unconstitutional spending. But Congress is more likely to continue the shell game to cover the fact that we are broke and can afford none of this.

This whole idea of "paying for" new programs is a political euphemism that suggests that raising taxes is just as good as cutting spending since neither one increases the national debt. Raising taxes and overwhelming small businesses with paperwork and regulations still increases governmental burden on our fragile economy. But this is our government’s idea of "fiscal restraint" in action. Washington needs to stop creating new programs and spending so much money. That would be true fiscal restraint.
repealed *

Who cares about the big Three Automakers?

Who cares about the banks?

Who cares about the big Department Stores?

Who cares about the Restaurants?

It should be a good thing, especially for people with small businesses… at least they don’t have to worry about competing
with the big companies…

Small companies can go ahead and sell their stuff.

And big name designers can ask small businesses to sell
their stuff.

And small unknown restaurants can hired the Chefs from Togo’s, Starbucks, Ruby Tuesday, etc…

Or no… not a good thing?

What happens to small businesses when they file bankruptcy? Don’t answer unless you know FOR SURE. In AZ

…Especially when laid off workers are forced to take lower paying jobs, while wealthy CEOs get bonuses, stock options, give themselves a raise, etc?

For example: I remember the story about this on the national tv news -
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/huge-housing-complex-in-ny-returned-to-creditors/
I also noticed there’s tons of stories on the internet about condo and apartment complexes that companies let go into foreclosure or declare bankruptcy about?

I asked because with all the talk I’ve seen many conservatives have had about people having responsibility, yet I typically either rarely, if ever see conservatives talking about how CEOs should be responsible and because with all the talk I’ve seen many conservative politicians have about "supporting the small businessman", but yet it always seems that when it comes to regulating big business or choosing between big business CEOs bottom line or helping the majority of people which many conservatives claim "includes the small businessmen" – it always seem that CEOs making billions are more important than regular people including the small businessman. In that last context especially I’m talking about when big business wipe out small businesses – people including myself have heard conservatives say "that’s just competion in a free market".

However try as I may – I just can’t seem to understand how companies like BP wiping out fishing business with their oil spills has anything to do with ‘competition’.

So that’s why I ask if wealthy CEOs, wealthy billionaires won’t pay their bills why should the poor or middle class workers pay theirs either?
Before I forget to mention it –
In case anyone disputes what I mentioned – I’d ask have you looked at the link yet or the internet about huge condo complexes, apartment complexes being foreclosed on?

Why would anyone think that health care price increases, bankruptcies, etc are okay? And please don’t go on about "universal health care", "canada," "that we need reform, but not what Obama is pledging, etc…" Would the republicans even try to change anything in health care? Or are the lobbyists for the drug and insurance companies paying too much money for them to have the courage to admit this is BS? How could the insurance companies be able to deny and drop anyone (individuals and small businesses) whenever they felt the need? How could that have been legal for this long? How could people have to depend on working for a large company to get decent insurance be acceptable all this time? WTF?
Seldon-what drug are you on? I am for Obama and health care reform. You are on something, my friend.
Consgreat-what are YOU on? We already cover the illegals, and the poor, who have nothing to lose. We need to help the middle class with reform, because they are always the ones who get screwed.
Redlad-here we go again. Rambling on universal health care. We have to start regulating the insurance companies, period. No denials, no dropping when someone gets ill, no more bankruptcies due to health care bills. There is a HUGE gray area between universal health care and adding regulations.

The Tea Act actually reduced the price of tea in the colonies, but in the process Parliament granted special favors to the East India Company, effectively giving it a legal monopoly on the tea trade. The Tea Act put smaller independent Colonial tea merchants out of business.

A true "Tea Party" today should really be protesting the increasing power of corporations over our government, and the tax breaks these companies get that drive locally owned businesses into bankruptcy (think Walmart!).

So are the people going to the Fox Tea Parties for or against the corporate takeover of America?
leahfu – google Boston Tea Party and read any of the articles. You will see that I am right. The Tea Act REDUCED the taxes on tea, but it also drove local small businesses out of business. That is why they were angry.
Leahfu – yes, it was collusion between the British government and a huge multinational corporation. When government intermingles with corporations, bad things happen. The corporations ran the government under Bush, and look how well that turned out. When huge corporations amass too much power and influence, they subvert democracy. It happened back then and it happened under Bush. I wish more Republicans would wake up and realize that corporations do not have America’s interests at heart, only their own profits.

We magically added 1.487 TRILLION dollars over 6 months out of Congress, and the Federal Reserve added an additional 2 Trillion to patch up the banks–with a little interest. But the national debt is rising exponentially with interest we could barely pay from last year’s balance.

You go to recovery.gov and find that a lot of money has been spent on propping up state programs because the states are on the brink of bankruptcy…like education and health care social programs–when that money goes, what then? What’s the PLAN after the money is spent to prevent another meltdown?

And how about tax relief–the government has annual tax revenues of 1.2 Trillion from tax payers…wouldn’t it have been cheaper to just give everyone a tax holiday so we could spend the money how WE saw fit? Isn’t it consumer spending that sparks the market and builds small businesses which are the backbone of economy??

How are we going to be better off after that money disappears??
As a matter of fact, I pulled out my retirement 2 weeks before the beginning of the market crash in November 2007. And I thank God I did because I would have lost 60% of my investment (compared with old co-workers who worked from the time I did, but lost that amount from their retirements). Instead I paid off a great portion of the debt I incurred from going to college and car loans because my mom and dad had no money to help me make my way, I had to borrow.
Socrates–did I once mention which president it was under? Does it MATTER?? No, because the purpose was all the same…throw good money after bad with no plan to make it better.

China holds enough of our debt that the US does not have enough money to pay off what we owe them. Just as many home owners have had to declare bankruptcy our country would be in the same position; that is, the money the government ‘earns’ (our tax dollar) would not be enough to me its citizens day-to-day expenses much less pay off China. Our dollar would be worthless on the world market. Every country that we owe money to would want their money also. We won’t have anything worth anything to import needed goods for us. The countrys’ credit would be nil, no country would loan us money just as our banks at the present time aren’t lending more to home buyers and small businesses. Serious replys would be appreciated.