Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Travis Raml, CPA & Associates, LLC
26 followers
26 followers
About
Travis Raml, CPA & Associates, LLC's interests
View all
Travis Raml, CPA & Associates, LLC's posts

Post has attachment
If you're running a small business, and unfortunately experiencing the painful side of business ownership (heart ache, and despair to name a few) ............Instead of letting the problem ruin another day, consider having us change the energy of things altogether.

First, we'll focus on determining the heart of the problems and finding solutions that stick and solve these issues to start, so we all can have much more fun in helping your business build wealth and providing you with dependable cash flow...........a call or email away can start to change everything: (443) 927-9161| info@ramlcpa.com
Photo

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Underdogs Can't Win Being Copycats
https://goo.gl/HeVUMn

Not a new article, or a new idea but one that needs to be constantly revisited. I tell this to every client that will listen, you can't take on the big boys by playing their game....in all likelihood it's just a quick way to the corporate graveyard.

This one of our mantras with our new redesigned and reimagined CFO & Business Advisory Services. Much more to follow shortly on this side of our business but quite simply I have no intentions of developing just another business consulting company that gets excited about stating the obvious.

Post has attachment
Why You Should Ignore the Success of Facebook and Uber

Your chances of winning the Powerball grand prize are about 1 in 292 million. So, while that happy event is certainly not impossible, you probably wouldn’t want to stake a business idea on those kinds of odds.

Those odds, by the way, are not that different from the probability of a college student’s yearbook-themed website attracting more than 1 billion users and surging to a valuation of about $350 billion. .........

https://goo.gl/e4ShWg

Post has attachment
The Senate passed legislation Wednesday eliminating a tax penalty on employers who reimburse employees for the cost of health insurance premiums, following passage of the measure last week in the House.

I thought this would (have to) happen at some point, but this is great news especially for small employers [both under and over the 50 employees] that want to offer health benefits, but not be handcuffed by outrageous plan premiums under traditional group plans.

Click to learn more:
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/tax-practice/congress-eliminates-irs-penalty-employer-reimbursements-health-insurance-80078-1.html

Post has attachment
This is by now way a new subject or a new article, but it is something that every business owner should keep in mind and in their back pocket: You will feel Pain!

This comes across cryptic I know, however it shouldn't as you think more about it and how it will affect you and your customers, industry, etc. To get things right (trial and error) as it were and to truly make a difference either in your location, market, segment, or industry......some form of pain is required to get it right and create something that transforms.

http://ow.ly/Z28G306VN6H

Post has attachment
Find out if you can deduct your medical expenses this year — and how

https://goo.gl/NMqyAa

Post has attachment
https://goo.gl/CiXOkO

These 13 states tax Social Security benefits

Post has attachment
Why Marissa Mayer's 130-Hour Workweek Idea Is Completely, Totally Wrong
_________________________________________________________________________________
Marissa Mayer says working 130 hours per week is what created Google. She is totally wrong about that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I do my best work from about 6 to 10 every morning.

The neurons are firing at full-speed, the toasted bagel is providing some fuel for standing up all day at my desk. (That's right, I'm testing standing desks again, including one that has a treadmill and a Bluetooth connection.)

Late at night, I jump on to check email and browse through news feeds. I typically work about 40 hours in a week, but I tend to be a bit sporadic about when I'm at my desk. I cherish those early morning hours. I dive in at 4 p.m. and crank out some more work, feeling a burst of energy because I plan to log-off at 5 p.m. no matter what.

In the past, I've written about the incredible effort it takes to start a company and build up momentum. One of my favorite stories is about the entrepreneur who told me he did two or three power lunches per day to promote his startup. He must have had a massive expense account. I've been known to send off a hundred emails in a 15-minute span (none of them are spam) in a furious rapid-fire attempt to find sources or track down cool products. I know what it means to work incredibly hard.

I know it takes perseverance and dedication. Yet, a comment today from Marissa Mayer in an interview seemed so off base that I worry there's an app developer, public relations guru, or product design genius who will read what she said and decide to start working three times as hard, and end up in the hospital from fatigue.

She said, in the early days of Google, people would work as much as 130 hours in a week, including an all-nighter. She claims that was the recipe for success, but the recipe is seriously flawed. Scientists have proved her wrong. Working more hours is not effective. Working smarter, taking breaks, choosing when you work, and leading a team more effectively will produce better results in the long run.

There's a reason working smarter is more effective. From my experience, whatever I'm producing at 3 a.m. is garbage anyway. In a short span--say that 6 to 10 a.m. window--I'm producing better work than anything I'd do in the late evening. You might think this depends on the job you're doing, but it's all about the science. We have a limited capacity for processing information. We have a few "circuits" and some adrenaline to help push ourselves, but it won't last long. In fact, science has found that you can blow out your adrenal glands pretty easily. (There's even a name for that--it's called adrenal gland dysfunction.) It's not possible to work 130 hours per week and still sleep soundly. There are only 120 hours in a five-day period!

Worse than this, Mayer even suggested that employees planned out their eating and bathroom breaks in order to work that much. The whole point here is that the argument is wrong. Working 130 hours does not lead to success. Working smarter leads to success. Also, perseverance is not the same as long hours. Perseverance is refusing to take no for an answer. It is not a timeframe. It is never giving up on an idea. It is leading with so much conviction and purpose that success eventually finds you rather than the other way around. It's about availability, dedication, and integrity, not about all-nighters. It sends a mixed message to people running a company that all you have to do is check email at 3 a.m. to make everyone love your widget. I'd say it's the opposite. You have to figure out how to work smart enough during the prime working hours and avoid checking email at 3 a.m. at all costs, because that practice can lead to outright failure and fatigue. It's unhealthy and unwise. It leads to health problems, a lack of balance in work and life, and even depression.

A better plan: Make a better widget. Sometimes, working longer hours and producing a worse product is the one thing that prevents people from succeeding.

And about my 40 hours: I'm trying to figure out how to work less and make each hour count for more than it has in the past. I'd rather spend my free time reading books. We all get 24 hours in a day, which levels the playing field. It's not how many hours we burn up working; it's how many hours we don't burn up.

BY John Brandon

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.


PUBLISHED ON: AUG 4, 2016

http://goo.gl/Y0Lr39

Post has attachment
"Why Marissa Mayer's 130-Hour Workweek Idea Is Completely, Totally Wrong"

________________________________________________________________________________

Marissa Mayer says working 130 hours per week is what created Google. She is totally wrong about that
________________________________________________________________________________


I do my best work from about 6 to 10 every morning.
The neurons are firing at full-speed, the toasted bagel is providing some fuel for standing up all day at my desk. (That's right, I'm testing standing desks again, including one that has a treadmill and a Bluetooth connection.)

Late at night, I jump on to check email and browse through news feeds. I typically work about 40 hours in a week, but I tend to be a bit sporadic about when I'm at my desk. I cherish those early morning hours. I dive in at 4 p.m. and crank out some more work, feeling a burst of energy because I plan to log-off at 5 p.m. no matter what.

In the past, I've written about the incredible effort it takes to start a company and build up momentum. One of my favorite stories is about the entrepreneur who told me he did two or three power lunches per day to promote his startup. He must have had a massive expense account. I've been known to send off a hundred emails in a 15-minute span (none of them are spam) in a furious rapid-fire attempt to find sources or track down cool products. I know what it means to work incredibly hard.

I know it takes perseverance and dedication. Yet, a comment today from Marissa Mayer in an interview seemed so off base that I worry there's an app developer, public relations guru, or product design genius who will read what she said and decide to start working three times as hard, and end up in the hospital from fatigue.

She said, in the early days of Google, people would work as much as 130 hours in a week, including an all-nighter. She claims that was the recipe for success, but the recipe is seriously flawed. Scientists have proved her wrong. Working more hours is not effective. Working smarter, taking breaks, choosing when you work, and leading a team more effectively will produce better results in the long run.

There's a reason working smarter is more effective. From my experience, whatever I'm producing at 3 a.m. is garbage anyway. In a short span--say that 6 to 10 a.m. window--I'm producing better work than anything I'd do in the late evening. You might think this depends on the job you're doing, but it's all about the science. We have a limited capacity for processing information. We have a few "circuits" and some adrenaline to help push ourselves, but it won't last long. In fact, science has found that you can blow out your adrenal glands pretty easily. (There's even a name for that--it's called adrenal gland dysfunction.) It's not possible to work 130 hours per week and still sleep soundly. There are only 120 hours in a five-day period!

Worse than this, Mayer even suggested that employees planned out their eating and bathroom breaks in order to work that much. The whole point here is that the argument is wrong. Working 130 hours does not lead to success. Working smarter leads to success. Also, perseverance is not the same as long hours. Perseverance is refusing to take no for an answer. It is not a timeframe. It is never giving up on an idea. It is leading with so much conviction and purpose that success eventually finds you rather than the other way around. It's about availability, dedication, and integrity, not about all-nighters. It sends a mixed message to people running a company that all you have to do is check email at 3 a.m. to make everyone love your widget. I'd say it's the opposite. You have to figure out how to work smart enough during the prime working hours and avoid checking email at 3 a.m. at all costs, because that practice can lead to outright failure and fatigue. It's unhealthy and unwise. It leads to health problems, a lack of balance in work and life, and even depression.

A better plan: Make a better widget. Sometimes, working longer hours and producing a worse product is the one thing that prevents people from succeeding.

And about my 40 hours: I'm trying to figure out how to work less and make each hour count for more than it has in the past. I'd rather spend my free time reading books. We all get 24 hours in a day, which levels the playing field. It's not how many hours we burn up working; it's how many hours we don't burn up.

by John Brandon | Contributing editor, Inc.com
Wait while more posts are being loaded