Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM in reply to: OT: So much for paying their fair share of taxes…. Facebook co-founder gives up U.S. citizenship… #743888May 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM in reply to: OT: So much for paying their fair share of taxes…. Facebook co-founder gives up U.S. citizenship… #743823
surveyor
ParticipantNo, you’re missing the point CAR.
Where did he get the money that he used to invest? Did it appear magically from somewhere else? Odds are that he worked for it and then invested it.
It’s still his money. The united states may be the parent that provided the environment for a successful child, but the parent has no right to the future income of the child when that child is an adult.
If the child wishes to give money back to the parent, then that is his choice but it is not for the parents to arbitrarily decide that it belongs to them.
What you constantly don’t understand is that the vast majority of these people bring value, jobs, money to the United States. Do you think increasing taxes, regulations, and transaction fees will support businesses and make them successful? Do you think demonizing businesses and putting them on blacklists will result in more businesses or less? Because these are the things you have advocated for.
So who’s missing the point again?
May 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM in reply to: OT: So much for paying their fair share of taxes…. Facebook co-founder gives up U.S. citizenship… #743774Participant[quote=CA renter]
This goes back to the ideas discussed on the “Self-Made Myth” thread. Where would Saverin be without the U.S.? IMHO, the benefits he received from our country and our taxpayers are what enabled him to make this money. He is a filthy, greedy tax evader, and he should lose EVERYTHING if he tries to avoid paying taxes on the wealth he earned almost exclusively because of the legal/social/business environment found in the U.S.[/quote]But it’s HIS money. This is not a communist country where the money an individual makes belongs to the state. You, the government, police, pensions, unions, politicians, and hell even wall street is not entitled to the money that HE made beyond what is legally required according to the laws of the United States. And he did the follow the law.
We could encourage people like him to stay and spend, invest, and donate his money here but why should he? He and all those other companies hoarding money overseas could have built a new business here, invested, spent money here, but the press, the government, you call them greedy tax evaders and you want them tarred and feathered. For working hard and investing money, they are demonized. For benefiting the world with facebook, he is cast as a person of ill repute.
For all your excitations, you want to _raise_ taxes on him and his “ilk”. If you do, don’t be surprised if this happens more often.
Look at the other side of the coin. Sinapore has NO capital gains taxes. They now get the benefit of that money that he brings to their economy. He will go there, invest, build, and spend HIS money.
So riddle me this economic genius, if we want more money in our economy, which model should we follow? The one where we get more money into our economy? Or the one where we get more money exiting our economy?
Because you can moan and groan about how unfair it is that people are walking out the U.S. with their money but it doesn’t change the fact that it is human nature to only want to keep what you have and protect it from people like you who think that it should be taken away.
[quote=flu]Nope, I’ll just find more legal creative ways pay less taxes, or legally shelter my income/assets…with no remorse…[/quote]
Participant[quote=flu]So, yah I don’t want to hear about folks suggesting we should pay more taxes.[/quote]
Congratulations on joining us, fellow conservative.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard[/quote]
Really? Personally, I’m not fine with that at all.
That’s why I live in Temecula, where $500K gets you a 4000 square foot house on a quarter-acre lot, adjacent to wine country, with clean air and clear views of the mountains…[/quote]
Yes, imagine what would it be like in a business friendly environment like Texas, where you could get that for $150k.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard[/quote]
Really? Personally, I’m not fine with that at all.
That’s why I live in Temecula, where $500K gets you a 4000 square foot house on a quarter-acre lot, adjacent to wine country, with clean air and clear views of the mountains…[/quote]
Yes, imagine what would it be like in a business friendly environment like Texas, where you could get that for $150k.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=surveyor]I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard[/quote]
Really? Personally, I’m not fine with that at all.
That’s why I live in Temecula, where $500K gets you a 4000 square foot house on a quarter-acre lot, adjacent to wine country, with clean air and clear views of the mountains…[/quote]
Yes, imagine what would it be like in a business friendly environment like Texas, where you could get that for $150k.
ParticipantHey, pri no prob, gotcha message received. I agree with you, it’s better to just nip the project in the bud. We don’t need no stinkin’ business in Temecula or California.
No need to put conditions for mitigating the damage, or regulating the bad effects on the EIR, just refuse the project and wait for other companies to come along and just hand out money like a goose with the golden egg.
‘Til then, I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard. I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $4/gallon gas. I’m so absolutely fine with sending money to China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
No, we don’t need to drill oil, mine coal, and use farmland, mine gravel.
I’m sure we can get our gravel from China. Or oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. No harm there, right?
It’s for the greater good, right? Tourism and wineries. Dude, totally agree.
ParticipantHey, pri no prob, gotcha message received. I agree with you, it’s better to just nip the project in the bud. We don’t need no stinkin’ business in Temecula or California.
No need to put conditions for mitigating the damage, or regulating the bad effects on the EIR, just refuse the project and wait for other companies to come along and just hand out money like a goose with the golden egg.
‘Til then, I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard. I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $4/gallon gas. I’m so absolutely fine with sending money to China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
No, we don’t need to drill oil, mine coal, and use farmland, mine gravel.
I’m sure we can get our gravel from China. Or oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. No harm there, right?
It’s for the greater good, right? Tourism and wineries. Dude, totally agree.
ParticipantHey, pri no prob, gotcha message received. I agree with you, it’s better to just nip the project in the bud. We don’t need no stinkin’ business in Temecula or California.
No need to put conditions for mitigating the damage, or regulating the bad effects on the EIR, just refuse the project and wait for other companies to come along and just hand out money like a goose with the golden egg.
‘Til then, I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $500k for a 1000 square foot house with no backyard. I’m TOTALLY fine with paying $4/gallon gas. I’m so absolutely fine with sending money to China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
No, we don’t need to drill oil, mine coal, and use farmland, mine gravel.
I’m sure we can get our gravel from China. Or oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. No harm there, right?
It’s for the greater good, right? Tourism and wineries. Dude, totally agree.
ParticipantOh, one more thing:
This project probably would’ve supplied materials for many infrastructure and building projects, a lot of which are wanted by the federal government.
I suppose instead of getting our materials locally and creating our own jobs by making best use of our resources, we’ll just have to get our gravel from China and pay them the money.
But hey gratz on stopping this project. Great win for America.
ParticipantOh, one more thing:
This project probably would’ve supplied materials for many infrastructure and building projects, a lot of which are wanted by the federal government.
I suppose instead of getting our materials locally and creating our own jobs by making best use of our resources, we’ll just have to get our gravel from China and pay them the money.
But hey gratz on stopping this project. Great win for America.
ParticipantOh, one more thing:
This project probably would’ve supplied materials for many infrastructure and building projects, a lot of which are wanted by the federal government.
I suppose instead of getting our materials locally and creating our own jobs by making best use of our resources, we’ll just have to get our gravel from China and pay them the money.
But hey gratz on stopping this project. Great win for America.
ParticipantLike I said pri I am not judging the merits or non-merits of the situation, but I see you guys talking all the time about how expensive materials are, how expensive housing is, how companies are not spending money in the U.S. and hoarding it outside in other countries, and how greedy companies are by charging an arm and a leg for housing.
And because of stories like this, why should businesses invest? Why should businesses make things cheaper? Why should businesses hire?
And yes it would be nice for companies to grow in tech, renewable energy, bio, but with all the regulations in place to stop them, why bother? You want to use Apple as a nice example, and it is, but it was started 30 years ago when there weren’t nearly as much regulations and resistance.
And maybe the quarry was going to create 100 direct jobs. How many of those jobs would result in other jobs because those 100 jobs would be spending their money in Temecula? Sure, maybe those 100 people would buy houses in Temecula, but they would also buy from the local furniture stores, buy at the local Costco, and so on. But instead the message is don’t bother doing business in Temecula, California, in the U.S. because you try to invest that money, it will be wasted away by refusing to certify an EIR.
Perhaps digging massive holes in the ground is not a growth industry, but do you think we would have been able to build a freakin’ aqueduct down the center of California with the environmental regulations today? How much would water cost here in southern California if it weren’t for that aqueduct? Ripple effect, dude.
It would be nice if we could get companies that don’t have an environmental impact, that create cheap renewable energy, and provide good jobs, but they rarely exist.
Look at that solar company that Obama championed for green jobs. Bankruptcy.
Look at Boeing, trying to expand operations in South Carolina. Federal interference.
Gibson guitars.
Just saying that next time people here call out how greedy companies are for charging $500k for a house on which they do a profit of $10k on a process that took 20 years to accomplish, you might want to consider this example.
ParticipantLike I said pri I am not judging the merits or non-merits of the situation, but I see you guys talking all the time about how expensive materials are, how expensive housing is, how companies are not spending money in the U.S. and hoarding it outside in other countries, and how greedy companies are by charging an arm and a leg for housing.
And because of stories like this, why should businesses invest? Why should businesses make things cheaper? Why should businesses hire?
And yes it would be nice for companies to grow in tech, renewable energy, bio, but with all the regulations in place to stop them, why bother? You want to use Apple as a nice example, and it is, but it was started 30 years ago when there weren’t nearly as much regulations and resistance.
And maybe the quarry was going to create 100 direct jobs. How many of those jobs would result in other jobs because those 100 jobs would be spending their money in Temecula? Sure, maybe those 100 people would buy houses in Temecula, but they would also buy from the local furniture stores, buy at the local Costco, and so on. But instead the message is don’t bother doing business in Temecula, California, in the U.S. because you try to invest that money, it will be wasted away by refusing to certify an EIR.
Perhaps digging massive holes in the ground is not a growth industry, but do you think we would have been able to build a freakin’ aqueduct down the center of California with the environmental regulations today? How much would water cost here in southern California if it weren’t for that aqueduct? Ripple effect, dude.
It would be nice if we could get companies that don’t have an environmental impact, that create cheap renewable energy, and provide good jobs, but they rarely exist.
Look at that solar company that Obama championed for green jobs. Bankruptcy.
Look at Boeing, trying to expand operations in South Carolina. Federal interference.
Gibson guitars.
Just saying that next time people here call out how greedy companies are for charging $500k for a house on which they do a profit of $10k on a process that took 20 years to accomplish, you might want to consider this example.
-
AuthorPosts