CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected

Just for the hell of it, decided to see if any more ceo's/richies are threatening the same thing.

And I did.

https://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/14/1009651/ceo-fire-employees-obama/

https://rt.com/usa/news/koch-brothers-obama-vote-501/

LividZephyr said:

I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.

Click to expand...

In situations like that I think there is enough blame to go around.

A contract is a contract. They bargained in good faith. Maybe they asked for too much, but at the same time their employer agreed. As a union, their role is to get the most bang for their buck - right or wrong. Similarly, those bargaining with the union on behalf of the government are supposed to do the same - get the most bang for our buck. They agreed to what they agreed to.

Both are at fault (I say vaguely, not necessarily about Wisconsin but about recent government-union issues in general. So... anything more tailored to Wisconsin and whether it was right or not for the union to concede beforehand I'm not touching)

Nice biased titled!

You mean he said that he might be forced layoff workers because of Obama's intent to raise his taxes. Businesses will need to compensate for these higher taxes but cutting costs elsewhere. Unfortunately, letting workers go can be a consequence of Obama's misguided attempt to raise taxes on America's job creators.

FreakyLocz14 said:

Nice biased titled!

You mean he said that he might be forced layoff workers because of Obama's intent to raise his taxes. Businesses will need to compensate for these higher taxes but cutting costs elsewhere. Unfortunately, letting workers go can be a consequence of Obama's misguided attempt to raise taxes on America's job creators.

Click to expand...

Answer this for me. How will he or his company be harmed if he has a increased tax rate? He will still be a billionaire, with more money then he will ever need in his life. If anything, the only harm will happen when he reduces to work force.

Here is the thing. We were starting to lose jobs when Bush was president. This was before any new taxes were proposed.

If low taxes truly created more jobs, then why were we losing jobs when Bush was in charge?

Mr. X said:

I was waiting for you to post here. I actually said it to myself, I can't wait for Freakylocz14 to post in this thread.

Answer this for me. How will he or his company be harmed if he has a increased tax rate? He will still be a billionaire, with more money then he will ever need in his life. If anything, the only harm will happen when he reduces to work force.

Click to expand...

He will be harmed because he will have less take-home pay, and him having to reduce his workforce is even more proof of the collateral damage that liberal policies cause. We need to permanently extend ALL of the Bus tax cuts, or the already bad unemployment problem will only get worse.

He is a billionaire. His 'take-home' pay is more then everyone in a small town will likely make in their entire lifetimes. Even with increased taxes, he will have more money then he will ever spend.

Also, answer this.

If low taxes truly created more jobs, then why did the recession start when Bush was in charge?

Edit - You know why the unemployment problem is bad? Because Republicans #1 objective is the make Obama a one term president. This was stated by one of the partys leaders.

Here and here.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012...with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU&feature=related

FreakyLocz14 said:

He will be harmed because he will have less take-home pay, and him having to reduce his workforce is even more proof of the collateral damage that liberal policies cause. We need to permanently extend ALL of the Bus tax cuts, or the already bad unemployment problem will only get worse.

Click to expand...

When taxes were higher under Clinton, things were good. When they were lowered, things got bad.

I understand keeping or lowering corporate taxes. And I can see how if that raises, layoffs may occur. But, I don't understand why if his income is taxed he has to fire people. He said if his taxes OR his company's taxes go up, he'll be forced to fire people. That just sounds threatening. Spiteful. "If I have to pay more, you all suffer"

Why can't personal income taxes be raised, but corporate taxes kept the same or lowered? Not saying that's what either party is proposing, just.. asking.

Mr. X said:

He is a billionaire. His 'take-home' pay is more then everyone in a small town will likely make in their entire lifetimes. Even with increased taxes, he will have more money then he will ever spend.

Also, answer this.

If low taxes truly created more jobs, then why were we losing jobs when Bush was in charge?

Click to expand...

I don't care how much money he has. The fact that your victim is wealthy does not justify taking even one red cent from them!

The President of the United States is not in charge of all economic activity in America. This is true of both Bush and Obama; however, the policies enacted by the government can affect the economy. We saw job growth when the Bush tax cuts were signed into law. The economy started slowing down because of housing bubble burst, and all the people who took out mortgages that they couldn't afford. This affects Wall Street, which in turn causes businesses to layoff workers, discourages investment, and discourages consumers from shopping. The housing bubble can be largely attributed to Democrat policies that were passed during the Carter and Clinton years. The Federal Reserve credit that was created to ensure subprime lenders that they would be covered, Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged subprime lending as a form of assistance to low-income people, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall financial regulations under Clinton, allowed Wall Street to buy-up these toxic mortgages and work their financial voodoo to make them profitable.

FreakyLocz14 said:

I don't care how much money he has. The fact that your victim is wealthy does not justify taking even one red cent from them!

Click to expand...

So, because he has money, he is allowed to ruin the lives of his employees?

Mr. X said:

So, because he has money, he is allowed to ruin the lives of his employees?

Click to expand...

If they are employed at-will, then yes. He can terminate their employment for any reason, including no reason at all, and his employees can discontinue working for him for any or no reason.

FreakyLocz14 said:

If they are employed at-will, then yes. He can terminate their employment for any reason, including no reason at all, and his employees can discontinue working for him for any or no reason.

Click to expand...

So, what do you think he would do with all the extra money? Reinvest it in the company? Or put it in a bank, and never use it?

Mr. X said:

So, what do you think he would do with all the extra money? Reinvest it in the company? Or put it in a bank, and never use it?

Click to expand...

It certainly is patriotic to respect the constitutionally protected freedom to contract. If the workers want more job security, they need to negotiate a contract with their employer. If the employer agrees, then the contract is binding.

FreakyLocz14 said:

It certainly is patriotic to respect the constitutionally protected freedom to contract. If the workers want more job security, they need to negotiate a contract with their employer. If the employer agrees, then the contract is binding.

Click to expand...

Ok... But that doesn't answer my question.

He fires his employees. What is he going to do with the extra money? Reinvest it in the company? Or put it in a bank, and never use it?

Mr. X said:

Ok... But that doesn't answer my question.

He fires his employees. What is he going to do with the extra money? Reinvest it in the company? Or put it in a bank, and never use it?

Click to expand...

He will likely use it to compensate for the income that he lost due to Obama's tax increases.

Mr. X said:

So, what do you think he would do with all the extra money? Reinvest it in the company? Or put it in a bank, and never use it?

Click to expand...

What's it to you? Take home pay is his business

What the CEO gets paid and the profit the business brings in are not the same. Everything the company brings in that doesn't go to the employees or other business expenses does not all go into the CEO's pocket.

FreakyLocz14 said:

He will likely use it to compensate for the income that he lost due to Obama's tax increases.

Click to expand...

Soo.... he'll give himself a pay raise? Wow, that's lame.

If I had to lay off employees I would, but for the company's bottom line - not my own. I'd take the hit personally

FreakyLocz14 said:

He will likely use it to compensate for the income that he lost due to Obama's tax increases.

Click to expand...

Even with the tax increase he'd still be one of the richest people in the USA. He'd still be making more money per month then most people would make in a decade.

Face it, anyway you try and cut it the only reason for him to do this is greed.

The money he has does explain how he does not need to lay off workers though. The point of "he has money" isn't to justify whether his taxes should be raised. It's that the point of this letter wasn't "I won't be able to afford to hire you guys anymore if my taxes are raised", but "I don't want Obama to win, so I'll send out a veiled threat to my employees in hopes that they'll help sway the vote towards Romney".

There is no necessity in his laying off of workers.

Mr. X said:

But, would his quality of life suffer from the loss of income?

Even with the tax increase he'd still be one of the richest people in the USA. He'd still be making more money per month then most people would make in a decade.

Face it, anyway you try and cut it the only reason for him to do this is greed.

Click to expand...

You can call it whatever you wish, but he has good reason to be concerned with the reelection of Obama. The entire purpose of starting a business is to make money. In order to do that, businesses do whatever they can do maximize profits, while minimizing costs. Now, he finds the profit-cost ratio of paying to hire these employees acceptable. If his taxes are raised, he must cut costs to maintain the same amount of net profit.

FreakyLocz14 said:

You can call it whatever you wish, but he has good reason to be concerned with the reelection of Obama. The entire purpose of starting a business is to make money. In order to do that, businesses do whatever they can do maximize profits, while minimizing costs. Now, he finds the profit-cost ratio of paying to hire these employees acceptable. If his taxes are raised, he must cut costs to maintain the same amount of net profit.

Click to expand...

Yes, the point is to make profit.

However, even with the increased taxes his company would still be making massive profits.

But yeah, who cares about the people? As long as the company is making multi-million dollar profits per month, everything is fine. Just pay no attention to all the people we fired so we can make 100 million dollars profit per month, instead of 90 million dollars profit per month.

Mr. X said:

Yes, the point is to make profit.

However, even with the increased taxes his company would still be making massive profits.

But yeah, who cares about the people? As long as the company is making multi-million dollar profits per month, everything is fine. Just pay no attention to all the people we fired so we can make 100 million dollars profit per month, instead of 99 million dollars profit per month.

Click to expand...

I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.