Own a business. Deduct that shit. Holla Cayman Islands! Cayman Islands! Pour Armand de Brignac on the bitches.
Repeat.
Printable View
Own a business. Deduct that shit. Holla Cayman Islands! Cayman Islands! Pour Armand de Brignac on the bitches.
Repeat.
The point is not so much about what anyone deserves but rather what system drives economic growth. I'm not sure anyone "deserves" to pay for any services they don't personally use, but I know nobody would want to live in a country where they didn't because it'd be a shithole of poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Most people who have the good fortune to make $250,000 wouldn't have the opportunity to do so in a country where the wealthier didn't pay more taxes. That's really the way you have to look at it, not like "It's MY goddamn money!"
He will make certain smaller sacrifices, but generally speaking, he will have no problem purchasing things he wants.Quote:
When you tax entrepreneur you hurt people beneath him/her. Because in order to survive he/she has to make cuts or reductions to accommodate.
But the people below him have a much narrower margin, and if they have less money, they stop buying in a way the guy making $250,000 doesn't. And there are a LOT more of them. Thus the economy depends on the purchasing power of those people considerably more than they do a wealthier individual having slightly more purchasing power.
Which is my point too. You have to frame the argument in terms of the economy, not in terms of how loud people bitch.Quote:
Whether they're happy or sad it doesn't matter.
Not everyone wants the most money they can, because they recognize that it comes with sacrifices. I would much rather be poor and do what I like than rich and hate what I do. Not everyone is like that.Quote:
Everyone wants to get the most money they can because everyone needs it to live.
It's not a matter of putting them in the crosshairs. No one is asking them to pay any more than they did under fucking Regan for fuck's sake. But you have to protect the middle class if you want this country to continue to be an economic power. The idea that the wealthy will save us all is bullshit.Quote:
I am not even saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed, really. I'm saying placing the rich in the crosshairs for taxation isn't going to relieve your country of its financial burden. It's a hollow plan. Find a better one.
Well he can go eat a dick. I have other shit to do with my money than buying a house and paying taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
FROG: I don't think we're arguing separate sides here.
If a company man is feeling the pinch in his lifestyle cuts will be made. It would be irresponsible not to dial back at the potential cost of dozens of jobs (and a lot of years ending in ruin). But in every company there are non-essential personnel that could be cut to streamline the business. Who knows if that job would even return in a bounce back (especially if the company ran fine without them). So my janitor, extra HR staff and some secretaries may be up the creek.Quote:
He will make certain smaller sacrifices, but generally speaking, he will have no problem purchasing things he wants.
Agreed. So the way to keep them gainfully employed is by taxation through reasonable means. (which is why we're not really arguing, just what defines reasonable?) If I'm Mr. Entrepreneur and I feel overburdened I outsource or move or cut costs (or go belly up). If I don't my competition will and attract better people / more business. That's how free market economics work.Quote:
But the people below him have a much narrower margin, and if they have less money, they stop buying in a way the guy making $250,000 doesn't. And there are a LOT more of them. Thus the economy depends on the purchasing power of those people considerably more than they do a wealthier individual having slightly more purchasing power.
If you pay taxes you're entitled to vote, was his second point IIRC. If you don't have a job how do you pay for school? I don't even know if I support that policy in general (i'd err on the side of voting rights for all in general - seems safer) since I know a lot of people who are born in to riches and mooch off their folks who could qualify to vote. And they'd vote mostly the way their family did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Fuckin' A California. 4 terms of Boxer wasn't enough? Want Brown to take another swing at things? You think the economy was bad when a RINO and state assembly were spending like spoiled white sorority chicks...and your solution is this one-two combo?
I need to move to OR or AZ. Or TX.
Non-essential personnel should be cut as much as possible unless they provide some sort of positive impact. If that impact is a work environment that attracts professionals to work there, you are likely decreasing the salary of those professionals. (If the work environment was shitty, it would take a more impressive salary to maintain employees). It is possible that firing them is an indirect way of dealing with static salaries in a decreasing economy, which actually sounds like a great mechanic now that I think of it! Those secretaries should find employment that is more useful to society, ideally speaking. Wheeee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
That never happens because people get busy running day to day operations for the most part. If the money is coming in there's no harm in having Ludvig the back up janitor. Once shit hits the fan people like that lose their positions (and even worthwhile people, too, mind you). Ideally Frog would be right -- professionals could just take a pay cut or do without certain luxuries and that's that. But often times people who are running a company have much high stakes in company (money wrapped up they can't withdraw right away) and more expenses, too, and not as many luxuries as you would think. BIG's Mo money mo problems is on the money.
It is never that simple. Some things can't be quantified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
One simple fact is that the less people enjoy working for you, the worse they will perform and the more likely they are to actually do things that hinder productivity.
Case in point, I have done a ton of free overtime for jobs I love. I've actively robbed employers I hate.
Some people are gears and others are the grease that makes things run smoothly. It is really stupid to go up the grease and say "hey you, you're not being a gear, get the fuck out of here"
Following that analogy, will your new name be monkey wrench?
Responding to both of Fe and Drew,
If professionals would take pay cuts, we would alleviate most if not all of the effects of a depression, at the VERY least take a HUGE chunk out of the unemployment that comes with it. "Sticky" or inelastic wages are pretty much. My argument is that, the janitor in fact, IS worthwhile, or a more efficient company would simply not hire the janitor.
For Fe: That is exactly what I am saying. Because the janitor, HR staff, and secretaries make life more enjoyable, they in fact are adding a positive benefit as far as productivity goes. I was going a bit farther and saying, by nature of having an enjoyable environment, you can pay your employee's less than you would have to for similar results without the enjoyable environment. Companies are in it to win it, Janitors and such have probably proven to be overall useful in hitting the bottom line. The only reason I can see them cyclically going (if this is even true) is that they are used as a form of pay cut. Since professionals don't take kindly to pay cuts, cutting the work atmosphere is essentially the same thing as reduced wages. I hadn't thought about it until this conversation, but it is a rather ingenious way of dealing with wage inelasticity.