wintersprings
New Member
Comrade El is a centrist? When? Since you want $9/gal gas, that puts you way way left of anyone here.
Leftie Storms Off Set, Couldn't Answer Question
- Thread starter cwo_ghwebb
- Start date
Comrade El is a centrist? When? Since you want $9/gal gas, that puts you way way left of anyone here.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Really quite easy comrade. :shrug:
Thanks for the heads up.
Wiki is a resource. I usually try to cross reference the information
with another source. (The Distribution of Wealth in America)
If the Wiki info is incorrect, it should be easily refuted.
Last edited:
Shunned.
wintersprings
New Member
edinsomd
New Member
It usually is, and you're welcome. You bring some reasoned debate to the party, unlike others who will go unmentioned.
Ed
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
I'll ask you to address the facts in the Heritage article again, not spout theory in answer to fact. You never did answer who is to determine the maximum amount of wealth a person can accumulate before it's taxed inordinately and whether that's even Constitutional. And you danced around the question, my employees always got paid first also. Do you put your money where your mouth is and pay your employees as much as you pay yourself? You support a policy that wants equal outcomes so they should be paid the same from what you've posted.
My employees didn't get the same salary as I. I took the risk and invested the capital, therefore I deserve more, imho. I also absorbed the losses when they happened. Success is not a straight line to the top. You talk about the government making the decision for you but you won't practice what you preach.
tommyjones
New Member
I love how they make merciless fun of him after he stomps off.
it really speaks to the whole probelm with FNN. they had the guy on with the express intent of antagonizing him, not to interview him. If they hadn't been talking over him, i am sure he would have stayed.
I watched hannity be a complete ass to a "guest" after one of the debates. what was funny was he didn't yell over any other guests, he only used that tactic on hie (D) guests.
i would think the (D)'s would just stop sending their reps to fox if this is going to be the way they are treated.
The information is the Heritage letter is designed to provoke conservative emotion and lacks credence. Ambiguous statisics prove nothing.
I draw the salary I need to live comfortably. While some of my top employees make close to what I do in salary, they don't share in the accumulated worth of the company. (My reward for my risk.)
I NEVER made the statement employees should share equally in the profits of a company. You just assumed such. I said my employees benefit when their efforts lead to higher profits.
The most successful companies are usually those that treat their employees well. (i.e. low turnover, low or no theft, loyalty and a positive attitude)
Most smart businesspeople are well aware of the tax rules that will apply when they start a new business... And yet they do it over and over again.
foodcritic
New Member
So basically you think this Osama apolagist is naive. He did not know that going on a FNN he would be pressed? Either way he looks like a fool. If he knew and walked off or he did not know and walked off....
Who does that on the most watched cable news network????????
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
The other guest asked him a question he didn't want to answer, not the hosts. The hosts did point out the baby just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. Which he got.
Hannity won't let a guest get away with not answering a question. He is relentless that way. The more they try to change the subject, the more demanding he is. And his audiences obviously want him to hold his guests accountable for their answers. Otherwise, his show would be long gone.
Why is it so hard for politicians (from both sides) to answer a straight up question?
Must be those shades of gray.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
I agree with your last two statements completely. It works.
You did never state employees should share equally in the profits of a company. But you do agree with Obama's position that if a business owner is netting over $250K, that owner should be taxed more severely. Supporting equal outcomes versus equal opportunity. If it's good enough to be forced down the throats of the rest of the citizens of the country, why isn't it good enough for you personally?
Just how would a tax increase impact small business? Should the owner just suck it up and allow his net profit to fall only 3%? Or is the cost of taxation passed along to the consumer? If consumers won't pay the extra costs, what then happens to the overall health of the business, and hence the employees?
Those in Maryland already got hit in July with a tax increase. Maybe your employees didn't notice, but I did.
The Heritage Foundation is a serious think tank, and has been for many years. I trust their reasoning and conclusions far more than MoveON.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
You're so fulla crap your eyes are brown!!
Show me proof their sole intent was to antagonize him you dolt.
Everything was FINE until he was asked a question completely relevant to the discussion and the little pussy wouldn't answer because he would have exposed himself.
Why can't you morons admit your positions are wrong and don't work??
Here's your seal.
Attachments
You're so fulla crap your eyes are brown!!
Show me proof their sole intent was to antagonize him you dolt.
Everything was FINE until he was asked a question completely relevant to the discussion and the little pussy wouldn't answer because he would have exposed himself.
Why can't you morons admit your positions are wrong and don't work??
Here's your seal.
Re, business taxes: Businesses enjoy many tax advantages individuals don't.
For instance, I can drive a nice company vehicle and it is a business tax deduction. As previously mentioned, business owners can receive a good salary while the company, overall, shows a loss... And, therefore, incurs no tax.
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2004 there were 25,409,525 business firms in the US. Of those firms, 19,523,741 (76.8%) had NO employees.
In 2006, the total number of nonemployer firms had risen to 20,768,555
with receipts of $970,384,137,000.
They breakdown as such:
Corporations: 1,353,461; Receipts - $166,144,520,000
Individual proprietorships: 18,177,466; $632,026,843,000
Partnerships: 1,237,628; $172,212,774,000
Source
One of the main reasons to form a corporation or LLC, as opposed to a proprietorship, is to limit liability and to protect assets. (Small businesses can enjoy the benefits of both the sole proprietorship and corporation by forming a Sub Chapter S corp.)
So why do 87.5% of nonemployer businesses elect to be sole proprietorships or even go into business at all?
I'm thinking, in a large part, it has to do with the tax advantages.
Re, the Heritage Foundation: I reiterate my previous statement. The HF letter carefully chose statistics that would have conservative emotional impact.
- The 46% home ownership figure doesn't break out the elder poor whose homes may be paid for.
- It carefully avoids statistics like how many of the families have to rely on food stamps.
- It avoids mentioning how many of the families are on welfare as opposed to being "working poor".
And on and on...
I have used HF information on a number of occasions but only when the information appears to be unbiased.
wintersprings
New Member
Comrade El has figured it all out. He has Chairman Obama on his side to tax the rich, and make sure the poor get the money.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
Of course folks create businesses for the tax advantages. Eliminate those advantages and consider the results. IMO, not good.
You state the HF information is biased, I think the information omitted isn't relevant. The American poor are far better off here than anywhere else, would you agree? Why do politicians have to ensure that we all have the same standard of living financed on the backs of the American taxpayers? What happens when incentive for success is removed? I don't understand the philosophy of equal outcomes. In my thinking it promotes laziness. Why should I work harder than the next person if there is nothing in it for me and my family? A hand up for those in true need is one thing, a hand out that just promotes more irresponsible behavior financed by responsible citizens is unacceptable.
We disagree on tax policy. I believe tax policy as currently enacted (and Obama's proposed tax policies) are more of government social engineering versus raising revenue.
I once heard a businessman refer to himself as a serial entrepreneur. I fancy myself as such. Tax laws were never a factor in whether I started a new business or not. As an entrepreneur youself, I'm sure you understand that many business people are risk junkies. We get high off of starting a new venture and then watching it succeed. Should it fail, we start again. It's what we do.
My take on tax policy is a "Pay to play" philosophy. You want to play in the greatest market in the world, you ante up. What some people forget is that ultimately, the voters make the rules. If the voters aren't happy, the response is usually far more severe than a balance that keeps everyone happy. Ultimately, tax policy after the election will be a mix of from both parties.
I know it and I think you know it.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
I actually went into business because I found I could make money doing what I considered for many years to be a hobby. It wasn't really all that risky because I had a retirement to fall back on and could always get a job if I needed one. It worked out for me but in the long run, got tired of the long hours and government regulations. I knew what I was getting into and made the decision after several years it wasn't worth it. Just my experience.
Most folks know the rules before jumping in the pot. I just dislike the government turning up the heat after I'm in the water.
If Obama wins and the Senate gets a filibuster proof majority, how much compromise on tax policy do you expect? Bipartisanship to a Democrat means 'shut up', I'll ram through whatever I want.
This gentleman predicted the demise of the American social experiment several hundred years ago. I think the chickens are coming home to roost.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
and the best:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville