OT – Joe the Plumber

[TheBreeze]

[quote=bob2007]
You two can’t possibly have run your own business, or if you did it did not go well. Small businesses need capital to grow.
[/quote]

Good business can fund their growth with their own profits. It sounds like you are a failure and need Bush’s socialism (i.e., $10 trillion bailout) to grow your crappy business.

[quote=bob2007]
While many small businesses are a single person, many more have a staff. If you employ a low number like 10 – 25 people, you need easy access to capital for growth, and to cover payroll in tough times.
[/quote]

You need easy access to capital to cover payroll? Decent business cover payroll with something called profits. It sounds like you had a bubble business that was dependent on Bush Socialism. The U.S. will be better off once your inefficient business is purged from the system. The economy is currently in the process of drinking some Colon Cleanse and your business is headed for the rectum. See ya!

[quote=bob2007]
The media always reports on underfunded companies, but having a bank account with 500k to 750k should not be penalized, as Obama wants to do.
[/quote]

This is a borderline retarded comment. Obama’s plan will raise taxes on income, not wealth. Your bank account will not be affected.

[quote=bob2007]
If I were to make $500k+ as personal income with intent to spend it on consumption, then I am more open to taxing it than I am if it is capital for my business. However, if I get taxed on my business cash flow, I’m laying one of you two off, possibly for your feelings of entitlement and lack of motivation to be successful.
[/quote]

I get calls from headhunters every day, you idiot. I assure that I am highly employable and would never work for some crappy business that needs to borrow money to fund payroll. There’s NFW I would work for a retard like you. If I am not treated well and paid well, I leave.

It sounds like you are used to employing people with little education and treating them like crap. No doubt your entire self-esteem is derived from belittling your employees. You are a sad little man with a failing business. I feel sorry for your employees, but, America will be better off when your business is flushed down the toilet.

[quote=bob2007]
I don’t think we have a good candidate to vote for, so I’m voting for the lesser evil, McCain. If Hillary were still around, she would be preferable to McCain. So I’m not party specific.
[/quote]

It doesn’t surprise me that you are voting for socialism for the super-rich. You obviously can’t survive without it.

[CA renter]

They would cut one or more employee to offset the extra tax burden and make the rest work harder to compensate.
——————-

What would stop the new company down the street from hiring those who were laid-off? The idiot cuts employees and expects the remaining employees to work harder to make up the difference…while the “boss” takes no cut in pay or increase in work???? The business would fail within months.

Enter the new business down the street (started by one of the ticked-off workers who does all the WORK and knows the business better than the “boss”), that pays its employees fairly and treats them well. Who do you think will be more productive, have more repeat clients/customers due to superior service, and have a better reputation (goodwill) — which increases the value of the company?

What some people fail to realize is that you need an end user/customer at the end of the business chain. That’s J6, whether you like it or not. And your wealth is directly tied to his, with a lag.

BTW, there is plenty of socialism for the rich. They control the politicians, and control the laws which govern where money flows. They have succeeded in brainwashing the sheeple into believing labor unions are bad and “socialism” is an evil darkness lurking behind every corner…waiting to turn us all into grey-uniformed, nameless, faceless communists…BOO!!

[CA renter]

They would cut one or more employee to offset the extra tax burden and make the rest work harder to compensate.
——————-

What would stop the new company down the street from hiring those who were laid-off? The idiot cuts employees and expects the remaining employees to work harder to make up the difference…while the “boss” takes no cut in pay or increase in work???? The business would fail within months.

Enter the new business down the street (started by one of the ticked-off workers who does all the WORK and knows the business better than the “boss”), that pays its employees fairly and treats them well. Who do you think will be more productive, have more repeat clients/customers due to superior service, and have a better reputation (goodwill) — which increases the value of the company?

What some people fail to realize is that you need an end user/customer at the end of the business chain. That’s J6, whether you like it or not. And your wealth is directly tied to his, with a lag.

BTW, there is plenty of socialism for the rich. They control the politicians, and control the laws which govern where money flows. They have succeeded in brainwashing the sheeple into believing labor unions are bad and “socialism” is an evil darkness lurking behind every corner…waiting to turn us all into grey-uniformed, nameless, faceless communists…BOO!!

[CA renter]

They would cut one or more employee to offset the extra tax burden and make the rest work harder to compensate.
——————-

What would stop the new company down the street from hiring those who were laid-off? The idiot cuts employees and expects the remaining employees to work harder to make up the difference…while the “boss” takes no cut in pay or increase in work???? The business would fail within months.

Enter the new business down the street (started by one of the ticked-off workers who does all the WORK and knows the business better than the “boss”), that pays its employees fairly and treats them well. Who do you think will be more productive, have more repeat clients/customers due to superior service, and have a better reputation (goodwill) — which increases the value of the company?

What some people fail to realize is that you need an end user/customer at the end of the business chain. That’s J6, whether you like it or not. And your wealth is directly tied to his, with a lag.

BTW, there is plenty of socialism for the rich. They control the politicians, and control the laws which govern where money flows. They have succeeded in brainwashing the sheeple into believing labor unions are bad and “socialism” is an evil darkness lurking behind every corner…waiting to turn us all into grey-uniformed, nameless, faceless communists…BOO!!

[CA renter]

They would cut one or more employee to offset the extra tax burden and make the rest work harder to compensate.
——————-

What would stop the new company down the street from hiring those who were laid-off? The idiot cuts employees and expects the remaining employees to work harder to make up the difference…while the “boss” takes no cut in pay or increase in work???? The business would fail within months.

Enter the new business down the street (started by one of the ticked-off workers who does all the WORK and knows the business better than the “boss”), that pays its employees fairly and treats them well. Who do you think will be more productive, have more repeat clients/customers due to superior service, and have a better reputation (goodwill) — which increases the value of the company?

What some people fail to realize is that you need an end user/customer at the end of the business chain. That’s J6, whether you like it or not. And your wealth is directly tied to his, with a lag.

BTW, there is plenty of socialism for the rich. They control the politicians, and control the laws which govern where money flows. They have succeeded in brainwashing the sheeple into believing labor unions are bad and “socialism” is an evil darkness lurking behind every corner…waiting to turn us all into grey-uniformed, nameless, faceless communists…BOO!!

[CA renter]

They would cut one or more employee to offset the extra tax burden and make the rest work harder to compensate.
——————-

What would stop the new company down the street from hiring those who were laid-off? The idiot cuts employees and expects the remaining employees to work harder to make up the difference…while the “boss” takes no cut in pay or increase in work???? The business would fail within months.

Enter the new business down the street (started by one of the ticked-off workers who does all the WORK and knows the business better than the “boss”), that pays its employees fairly and treats them well. Who do you think will be more productive, have more repeat clients/customers due to superior service, and have a better reputation (goodwill) — which increases the value of the company?

What some people fail to realize is that you need an end user/customer at the end of the business chain. That’s J6, whether you like it or not. And your wealth is directly tied to his, with a lag.

BTW, there is plenty of socialism for the rich. They control the politicians, and control the laws which govern where money flows. They have succeeded in brainwashing the sheeple into believing labor unions are bad and “socialism” is an evil darkness lurking behind every corner…waiting to turn us all into grey-uniformed, nameless, faceless communists…BOO!!

[gandalf]

This issue is more properly understood as a LESS regressive tax system. The whole line that dems must be communist because they advocate for a fairer tax structure shows how ridiculous the GOP is nowadays. Distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically upwards in the past 30 years.

Most corporations and many wealthy individuals pay a lower marginal tax rate than average individuals, because of shelters and exclusions. There are so many loopholes in the definition of income that the tax system as a whole has become regressive to the point where it’s disgusting.

How is it that sophisticated operators, large corporations and wealthy individuals, can avoid paying taxes year after year? As in ZERO tax. As in Shirking Freeloader Assholes.

Bottom line, we have to pay for the services our government provides. If you have more money than others, perhaps you should be paying a little more than the family down the street. It’s the neighborly thing to do. You might not agree, but from an ethical standpoint, you should absolutely be paying your share instead of engaging in tax avoidance, legal or otherwise.

Speaking of neighbors, my next door neighbor is being sent back to Iraq next month. His family, they aren’t wealthy. They have a small child, two year-old girl. They’re underwater on their house back in the midwest. And his wife is going back to work now to help pay bills. It’s tough, all the way around.

So I have a huge problem with corporations and wealthy individuals paying a lower marginal rate of tax than average people. I am in favor of a LESS regressive tax structure. I am even in favor of a flat tax if it diminishes tax avoidance, which is the real issue underlying the inequality.

bob2007: I run a business, a reasonably successful one, and I have no complaints about a LESS regressive tax structure. Formation of a strong middle class is the greatest wealth multiplier in the history of societies and economics. Fact is, we’re going to need a strong middle class to deal with the challenges posed by globalization in the years ahead. That’s smart business.

[gandalf]

This issue is more properly understood as a LESS regressive tax system. The whole line that dems must be communist because they advocate for a fairer tax structure shows how ridiculous the GOP is nowadays. Distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically upwards in the past 30 years.

Most corporations and many wealthy individuals pay a lower marginal tax rate than average individuals, because of shelters and exclusions. There are so many loopholes in the definition of income that the tax system as a whole has become regressive to the point where it’s disgusting.

How is it that sophisticated operators, large corporations and wealthy individuals, can avoid paying taxes year after year? As in ZERO tax. As in Shirking Freeloader Assholes.

Bottom line, we have to pay for the services our government provides. If you have more money than others, perhaps you should be paying a little more than the family down the street. It’s the neighborly thing to do. You might not agree, but from an ethical standpoint, you should absolutely be paying your share instead of engaging in tax avoidance, legal or otherwise.

Speaking of neighbors, my next door neighbor is being sent back to Iraq next month. His family, they aren’t wealthy. They have a small child, two year-old girl. They’re underwater on their house back in the midwest. And his wife is going back to work now to help pay bills. It’s tough, all the way around.

So I have a huge problem with corporations and wealthy individuals paying a lower marginal rate of tax than average people. I am in favor of a LESS regressive tax structure. I am even in favor of a flat tax if it diminishes tax avoidance, which is the real issue underlying the inequality.

bob2007: I run a business, a reasonably successful one, and I have no complaints about a LESS regressive tax structure. Formation of a strong middle class is the greatest wealth multiplier in the history of societies and economics. Fact is, we’re going to need a strong middle class to deal with the challenges posed by globalization in the years ahead. That’s smart business.

[gandalf]

This issue is more properly understood as a LESS regressive tax system. The whole line that dems must be communist because they advocate for a fairer tax structure shows how ridiculous the GOP is nowadays. Distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically upwards in the past 30 years.

Most corporations and many wealthy individuals pay a lower marginal tax rate than average individuals, because of shelters and exclusions. There are so many loopholes in the definition of income that the tax system as a whole has become regressive to the point where it’s disgusting.

How is it that sophisticated operators, large corporations and wealthy individuals, can avoid paying taxes year after year? As in ZERO tax. As in Shirking Freeloader Assholes.

Bottom line, we have to pay for the services our government provides. If you have more money than others, perhaps you should be paying a little more than the family down the street. It’s the neighborly thing to do. You might not agree, but from an ethical standpoint, you should absolutely be paying your share instead of engaging in tax avoidance, legal or otherwise.

Speaking of neighbors, my next door neighbor is being sent back to Iraq next month. His family, they aren’t wealthy. They have a small child, two year-old girl. They’re underwater on their house back in the midwest. And his wife is going back to work now to help pay bills. It’s tough, all the way around.

So I have a huge problem with corporations and wealthy individuals paying a lower marginal rate of tax than average people. I am in favor of a LESS regressive tax structure. I am even in favor of a flat tax if it diminishes tax avoidance, which is the real issue underlying the inequality.

bob2007: I run a business, a reasonably successful one, and I have no complaints about a LESS regressive tax structure. Formation of a strong middle class is the greatest wealth multiplier in the history of societies and economics. Fact is, we’re going to need a strong middle class to deal with the challenges posed by globalization in the years ahead. That’s smart business.

[gandalf]

This issue is more properly understood as a LESS regressive tax system. The whole line that dems must be communist because they advocate for a fairer tax structure shows how ridiculous the GOP is nowadays. Distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically upwards in the past 30 years.

Most corporations and many wealthy individuals pay a lower marginal tax rate than average individuals, because of shelters and exclusions. There are so many loopholes in the definition of income that the tax system as a whole has become regressive to the point where it’s disgusting.

How is it that sophisticated operators, large corporations and wealthy individuals, can avoid paying taxes year after year? As in ZERO tax. As in Shirking Freeloader Assholes.

Bottom line, we have to pay for the services our government provides. If you have more money than others, perhaps you should be paying a little more than the family down the street. It’s the neighborly thing to do. You might not agree, but from an ethical standpoint, you should absolutely be paying your share instead of engaging in tax avoidance, legal or otherwise.

Speaking of neighbors, my next door neighbor is being sent back to Iraq next month. His family, they aren’t wealthy. They have a small child, two year-old girl. They’re underwater on their house back in the midwest. And his wife is going back to work now to help pay bills. It’s tough, all the way around.

So I have a huge problem with corporations and wealthy individuals paying a lower marginal rate of tax than average people. I am in favor of a LESS regressive tax structure. I am even in favor of a flat tax if it diminishes tax avoidance, which is the real issue underlying the inequality.

bob2007: I run a business, a reasonably successful one, and I have no complaints about a LESS regressive tax structure. Formation of a strong middle class is the greatest wealth multiplier in the history of societies and economics. Fact is, we’re going to need a strong middle class to deal with the challenges posed by globalization in the years ahead. That’s smart business.

[gandalf]

This issue is more properly understood as a LESS regressive tax system. The whole line that dems must be communist because they advocate for a fairer tax structure shows how ridiculous the GOP is nowadays. Distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically upwards in the past 30 years.

Most corporations and many wealthy individuals pay a lower marginal tax rate than average individuals, because of shelters and exclusions. There are so many loopholes in the definition of income that the tax system as a whole has become regressive to the point where it’s disgusting.

How is it that sophisticated operators, large corporations and wealthy individuals, can avoid paying taxes year after year? As in ZERO tax. As in Shirking Freeloader Assholes.

Bottom line, we have to pay for the services our government provides. If you have more money than others, perhaps you should be paying a little more than the family down the street. It’s the neighborly thing to do. You might not agree, but from an ethical standpoint, you should absolutely be paying your share instead of engaging in tax avoidance, legal or otherwise.

Speaking of neighbors, my next door neighbor is being sent back to Iraq next month. His family, they aren’t wealthy. They have a small child, two year-old girl. They’re underwater on their house back in the midwest. And his wife is going back to work now to help pay bills. It’s tough, all the way around.

So I have a huge problem with corporations and wealthy individuals paying a lower marginal rate of tax than average people. I am in favor of a LESS regressive tax structure. I am even in favor of a flat tax if it diminishes tax avoidance, which is the real issue underlying the inequality.

bob2007: I run a business, a reasonably successful one, and I have no complaints about a LESS regressive tax structure. Formation of a strong middle class is the greatest wealth multiplier in the history of societies and economics. Fact is, we’re going to need a strong middle class to deal with the challenges posed by globalization in the years ahead. That’s smart business.

[an]

CA renter, you’re assuming that all employees are productive. What make you think the other companies down the street won’t do the same thing? Why do I see all these company laying off right now? Is it not because the company’s PROFIT is going down? PROFIT is after tax/expense/etc. So if you increase their cost, their profit goes down. This won’t be just one company doing it. If majority of company feel their profit squeezed, they’ll squeeze their employees first.

Lets assume a company have 10 employees, 5 are extremely productive and 5 are mediocre. The company profit get squeezed due to higher taxes, etc. If I run that company, i’d cut some of the mediocre people, and distribute some of the $ I saved from those mediocre employee to my productive employee. That way, my stars will be even happier and my profit stay the same or improve. What I just described is not new. Why do you think companies have layoffs?

What you also fail to see is this is a global economy now. Why do you think they’re outsourcing a lot of our jobs? Increasing their cost is not going to bring back any jobs. If anything, it’ll drive away more jobs.

BTW, I’ve lived in a communist country, so I know a little something something about “equality” for all. That’s why I love this country.

[an]

CA renter, you’re assuming that all employees are productive. What make you think the other companies down the street won’t do the same thing? Why do I see all these company laying off right now? Is it not because the company’s PROFIT is going down? PROFIT is after tax/expense/etc. So if you increase their cost, their profit goes down. This won’t be just one company doing it. If majority of company feel their profit squeezed, they’ll squeeze their employees first.

Lets assume a company have 10 employees, 5 are extremely productive and 5 are mediocre. The company profit get squeezed due to higher taxes, etc. If I run that company, i’d cut some of the mediocre people, and distribute some of the $ I saved from those mediocre employee to my productive employee. That way, my stars will be even happier and my profit stay the same or improve. What I just described is not new. Why do you think companies have layoffs?

What you also fail to see is this is a global economy now. Why do you think they’re outsourcing a lot of our jobs? Increasing their cost is not going to bring back any jobs. If anything, it’ll drive away more jobs.

BTW, I’ve lived in a communist country, so I know a little something something about “equality” for all. That’s why I love this country.

[an]

CA renter, you’re assuming that all employees are productive. What make you think the other companies down the street won’t do the same thing? Why do I see all these company laying off right now? Is it not because the company’s PROFIT is going down? PROFIT is after tax/expense/etc. So if you increase their cost, their profit goes down. This won’t be just one company doing it. If majority of company feel their profit squeezed, they’ll squeeze their employees first.

Lets assume a company have 10 employees, 5 are extremely productive and 5 are mediocre. The company profit get squeezed due to higher taxes, etc. If I run that company, i’d cut some of the mediocre people, and distribute some of the $ I saved from those mediocre employee to my productive employee. That way, my stars will be even happier and my profit stay the same or improve. What I just described is not new. Why do you think companies have layoffs?

What you also fail to see is this is a global economy now. Why do you think they’re outsourcing a lot of our jobs? Increasing their cost is not going to bring back any jobs. If anything, it’ll drive away more jobs.

BTW, I’ve lived in a communist country, so I know a little something something about “equality” for all. That’s why I love this country.

[an]

CA renter, you’re assuming that all employees are productive. What make you think the other companies down the street won’t do the same thing? Why do I see all these company laying off right now? Is it not because the company’s PROFIT is going down? PROFIT is after tax/expense/etc. So if you increase their cost, their profit goes down. This won’t be just one company doing it. If majority of company feel their profit squeezed, they’ll squeeze their employees first.

Lets assume a company have 10 employees, 5 are extremely productive and 5 are mediocre. The company profit get squeezed due to higher taxes, etc. If I run that company, i’d cut some of the mediocre people, and distribute some of the $ I saved from those mediocre employee to my productive employee. That way, my stars will be even happier and my profit stay the same or improve. What I just described is not new. Why do you think companies have layoffs?

What you also fail to see is this is a global economy now. Why do you think they’re outsourcing a lot of our jobs? Increasing their cost is not going to bring back any jobs. If anything, it’ll drive away more jobs.

BTW, I’ve lived in a communist country, so I know a little something something about “equality” for all. That’s why I love this country.

[Author]

Posts