[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’m in the Houston area and was laid off 2 days before Enron went under. I found another job a month later. Texas has all the good jobs. Move to Texas if you can, just leave your liberal politics where you are now. Conservative values are why jobs are here, and Liberal Politics are why jobs are not there.[/quote]
I don’t get your point I had a cousin lose their job at Enron and got a job almost immediately she is very liberal .
[/quote]
Right now Texas and Conservative states have more jobs than Liberal Blue states. People are moving to Texas for the jobs, and low tax rates. People are welcome to move here just leave your liberal politics in the place you are leaving. If you dont then the current Conservative states will go liberal and wreak the entire economy.[/quote]
That’s a big claim with no proof[/quote]
The state of Texas added representatives in the last census while New York and California lost representatives. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics December 2012(California Unemployment rate 9.8%, Illinois 8.7%, Texas 6.1%, Oklahoma 5.1%) I just picked a couple of states that lean far left and far right)
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’m in the Houston area and was laid off 2 days before Enron went under. I found another job a month later. Texas has all the good jobs. Move to Texas if you can, just leave your liberal politics where you are now. Conservative values are why jobs are here, and Liberal Politics are why jobs are not there.[/quote]
I don’t get your point I had a cousin lose their job at Enron and got a job almost immediately she is very liberal .
[/quote]
I have never met an honest person who worked at Enron. It was the most rotten group of people I’ve ever seen from top to bottom.
Doesn’t surprise me that a “very liberal” person would work there.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’m in the Houston area and was laid off 2 days before Enron went under. I found another job a month later. Texas has all the good jobs. Move to Texas if you can, just leave your liberal politics where you are now. Conservative values are why jobs are here, and Liberal Politics are why jobs are not there.[/quote]
I don’t get your point I had a cousin lose their job at Enron and got a job almost immediately she is very liberal .
[/quote]
I have never met an honest person who worked at Enron. It was the most rotten group of people I’ve ever seen from top to bottom.
Doesn’t surprise me that a “very liberal” person would work there.[/quote]
She was a secretary , I would trust her with anything I own . She is a very moral person .
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’m in the Houston area and was laid off 2 days before Enron went under. I found another job a month later. Texas has all the good jobs. Move to Texas if you can, just leave your liberal politics where you are now. Conservative values are why jobs are here, and Liberal Politics are why jobs are not there.[/quote]
I don’t get your point I had a cousin lose their job at Enron and got a job almost immediately she is very liberal .
[/quote]
I have never met an honest person who worked at Enron. It was the most rotten group of people I’ve ever seen from top to bottom.
Doesn’t surprise me that a “very liberal” person would work there.[/quote]
Just curious about your thought process. Is that conservative ? Christian ? and what is your success rate in evaluating people with it ?
A government run economy? Wow, that’s an original idea. Why hasn’t any other country ever thought of that? I bet it would work even better if the government owned all the businesses and didn’t have to stick to merely dictating how those businesses run.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A government run economy? Wow, that’s an original idea. Why hasn’t any other country ever thought of that? I bet it would work even better if the government owned all the businesses and didn’t have to stick to merely dictating how those businesses run.[/quote]
It is not an economy it is a minimum wage . Tax payers subsidize all the employees of these low paying jobs .
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Tax payers should not have to subsidize anyone or anything. We absolutely agree there.
Throughout this thread you have argued against government interference in the economy while asking for more.
[/quote]
We both know a free market will never happen, All you can hope for is a level playing field . The very wealthy are taking a very hands on approach and when the middle class wants to advocate for it self , it is some how wrong ? I don’t get it , sorry
The idea that the wealthy stole the money of the poor to make them rich, and that there is a finite amount of money out there is liberal way of thinking, and the poor eat this crap up.
Lets look at a hypothetical example. I have $200,000 to build a house. I take that money and pay money to 10 different people to build the house. Once completed all 10 people have $20k each and now I own a $300,000 house because I was the general contractor and the house appraised at $300k. So my $200,000 is now become $500,000. Liberals would say I just made $100,000 on the backs of labor. Does this make me a bad person because I paid them a wage to build my house, or should I fork over that $100,000 to the government because I am now a greedy rich person?
I am not sure I understand you but , I have no problem with any scenario as long as everybody plays by the same rules and tax rates. Let’s say those are the rules you have to play by but because I build 1000’s of houses a year the government gives me money to pay my workers and I do not have to pay taxes because I play golf with the right people .
Right out of the box I am at a %30 advantage . No one will buy your house because it is too expensive
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The idea that the wealthy stole the money of the poor to make them rich, and that there is a finite amount of money out there is liberal way of thinking, and the poor eat this crap up.
Lets look at a hypothetical example. I have $200,000 to build a house. I take that money and pay money to 10 different people to build the house. Once completed all 10 people have $20k each and now I own a $300,000 house because I was the general contractor and the house appraised at $300k. So my $200,000 is now become $500,000. Liberals would say I just made $100,000 on the backs of labor. Does this make me a bad person because I paid them a wage to build my house, or should I fork over that $100,000 to the government because I am now a greedy rich person?
This is the type of crap coming from the left. [/quote]
What people often confuse is input and results. They don’t understand it isn’t the input that determines value as much as the result that does.
They also like to ignore you could turn around and sell that house for 300k, pocket 40k and then pay 13 people 20k each to work on your house. hey look at that, everyone wins, raising tide lifts all boats… hmmmm…
Nope they’d rather the government control the price you can charge for a house so that you can only pay 6 people to build your house, because poor people and all that. So in essence the rent control that is supposed to help poor people aford homes, actully lowers the supply of homes because you have no incentive to build one as you can’t make any money…
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The idea that the wealthy stole the money of the poor to make them rich, and that there is a finite amount of money out there is liberal way of thinking, and the poor eat this crap up.
Lets look at a hypothetical example. I have $200,000 to build a house. I take that money and pay money to 10 different people to build the house. Once completed all 10 people have $20k each and now I own a $300,000 house because I was the general contractor and the house appraised at $300k. So my $200,000 is now become $500,000. Liberals would say I just made $100,000 on the backs of labor. Does this make me a bad person because I paid them a wage to build my house, or should I fork over that $100,000 to the government because I am now a greedy rich person?
This is the type of crap coming from the left. [/quote]
What people often confuse is input and results. They don’t understand it isn’t the input that determines value as much as the result that does.
They also like to ignore you could turn around and sell that house for 300k, pocket 40k and then pay 13 people 20k each to work on your house. hey look at that, everyone wins, raising tide lifts all boats… hmmmm…
Nope they’d rather the government control the price you can charge for a house so that you can only pay 6 people to build your house, because poor people and all that. So in essence the rent control that is supposed to help poor people aford homes, actully lowers the supply of homes because you have no incentive to build one as you can’t make any money…
alas… gubment in all its wonder.[/quote]
I love Texas we do not have rent control, and Supply and Demand actually works. I own 7 rental properties and I love the cash flow. If a tenet does not like the rent I am charging they can find another place to live. I give them the best product at the best price on all of my properties. Most tenets stay for multiple years.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have no problem with any scenario as long as everybody plays by the same rules[/quote]
Everyone does.
If one industry gets a tax break you like, start a company in that industry.
So people that make 30k a year should pay 39% just like the people that make 400k?
In the real world, this doesn’t happen. Sorry.
lol, move out of the sticks. 300k around here is a shit hole. [/quote]
300 k here is a medium house here .
Are you telling me big corporations do not get tax incentives for hiring minorities , long term unemployed ?
Or are you telling me if my lobbyist plays golf with the right people that I can have tax code tweaked ?
I contend it happens not only in the Fed but the State and local Gov as well. If you own a True Value in North Scottsdale You are at 1.65% disadvantage before we even talk about buying power or Corporate tax rates .
Are you telling me big corporations do not get tax incentives for hiring minorities , long term unemployed ?[/quote]
Small ones get those as well, and they aren’t all they are cracked up to be. The qualifications are hard to meet in general, outside of vets.
You don’t have to be a certain size to get these benefits.
This also ignores the many many rules companies can ignore if they small numbers of employees.
Sure, but again, it doens’t mean things aren’t “fair”. You’re free to open a business in that industry. Unless the regulations are too much.
[quote]I contend it happens not only in the Fed but the State and local Gov as well. If you own a True Value in North Scottsdale You are at 1.65% disadvantage before we even talk about buying power or Corporate tax rates .
That 1.65 is Scottsdale’s tax rate .[/quote]
If 1.65% is going to break you, I suggest you find a new industry.
But, big picture, you can’t ignore that these “disadvantages” of the few might end up benefitting many many more. And you have no problem putting people with high income in any given year at a disadvantage, why do you pick and choose who you disadvantage?
I personally think all Corporations should be tax exempt because when one is taxed at 0% and the other at 14% that is huge .
When your profit is less than %5 ,1.65% is fucking huge
If Home depot did not employ 100 people at minimum wage Paul’s Hardware would pick up the slack.
Foxworth Galbreath would throw in their 2 cents . Tax rate is why big Corporations are beating ma and pa
I understand you are a bean counter and you would not be employed if the tax rate was transparent . We come from two different points , yours prepare financial statements mine to compete with people that pay less taxes than I
Where there is a demand some one will supply . Walmart is the biggest culprit of this . Walmart killed many small Ma and Pa’s businesses starting with local tax breaks
My whole point is that Government is presently choosing winners and losers via tax policy. All these Faux bots think they are combating the Government from this . It is happening and has been happening since Government came about
I personally think all Corporations should be tax exempt
[/quote]
Really? We are on the same page then.
On the topic of WalMart they did it cheaper not by their tax breaks but their ability to force their suppliers to cut their costs because of WalMarts huge buying powers. WalMart then passed the savings to customers. Small Ma and Pa stores do not have this economy of scales that WalMart has.
