Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood][quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.[/quote]
I’m sorry I guess I was not clear enough.
If 2.5B for 240,000 jobs is good, then why not amp up the program to 50 Billion and make those jobs higher-paying ?
I assume that the 240,000 jobs pay more than the 10K it costs the goverment.
Participant[quote=NicMM]Yes, the company is a land banker, which owns tens of thousand acres of land acquired over 30 years ago. They parcel the land into 2.5 acre a piece and sell them at different prices according to some standards.
NicMM[/quote]
The best way to make money in land is to buy tens of thousands of acres wholesale, parcel it into 2.5 acre pieces and sell it a decade or two later at retail to individual investors to which you provided a free seminar on how great it is to invest in raw land.
Participant[quote=NicMM]Yes, the company is a land banker, which owns tens of thousand acres of land acquired over 30 years ago. They parcel the land into 2.5 acre a piece and sell them at different prices according to some standards.
NicMM[/quote]
The best way to make money in land is to buy tens of thousands of acres wholesale, parcel it into 2.5 acre pieces and sell it a decade or two later at retail to individual investors to which you provided a free seminar on how great it is to invest in raw land.
Participant[quote=NicMM]Yes, the company is a land banker, which owns tens of thousand acres of land acquired over 30 years ago. They parcel the land into 2.5 acre a piece and sell them at different prices according to some standards.
NicMM[/quote]
The best way to make money in land is to buy tens of thousands of acres wholesale, parcel it into 2.5 acre pieces and sell it a decade or two later at retail to individual investors to which you provided a free seminar on how great it is to invest in raw land.
Participant[quote=NicMM]Yes, the company is a land banker, which owns tens of thousand acres of land acquired over 30 years ago. They parcel the land into 2.5 acre a piece and sell them at different prices according to some standards.
NicMM[/quote]
The best way to make money in land is to buy tens of thousands of acres wholesale, parcel it into 2.5 acre pieces and sell it a decade or two later at retail to individual investors to which you provided a free seminar on how great it is to invest in raw land.
Participant[quote=NicMM]Yes, the company is a land banker, which owns tens of thousand acres of land acquired over 30 years ago. They parcel the land into 2.5 acre a piece and sell them at different prices according to some standards.
NicMM[/quote]
The best way to make money in land is to buy tens of thousands of acres wholesale, parcel it into 2.5 acre pieces and sell it a decade or two later at retail to individual investors to which you provided a free seminar on how great it is to invest in raw land.
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!
September 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #610449Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]Rich,
Thanks for the warning. It is dumb to engage in left-right slapfests as both sides are guilty.[/quote]
Admission of the problem is the first step on the path to recovery.
September 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #611083Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]Rich,
Thanks for the warning. It is dumb to engage in left-right slapfests as both sides are guilty.[/quote]
Admission of the problem is the first step on the path to recovery.
September 29, 2010 at 7:42 AM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #611194Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]Rich,
Thanks for the warning. It is dumb to engage in left-right slapfests as both sides are guilty.[/quote]
Admission of the problem is the first step on the path to recovery.
-
AuthorPosts
