CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected Page 2

Started by Mr. X October 15th, 2012 12:28 PM
  • 2355 views
  • 70 replies

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch-McConnell-vowed-no-cooperation-with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU&feature=related

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
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.
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.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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?
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.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
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!
So, because he has money, he is allowed to ruin the lives of his employees?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
So, because he has money, he is allowed to ruin the lives of his employees?
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.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
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.
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?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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?
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.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
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.
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?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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?
He will likely use it to compensate for the income that he lost due to Obama's tax increases.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
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?
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.

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

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
He will likely use it to compensate for the income that he lost due to Obama's tax increases.
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.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
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.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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.
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.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
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.
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.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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.
I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.
If your so concerned about the layoff's, then why do you support this person and his intention to fire his employee's out of nothing but spite?

Can you really justify the greed? Can you justify a company firing employees, even when the company is still turning a lot of profits and is in no danger of failing, just so they can make a couple more million a month?

I'd be supporting him, if his company was in danger of failing. But it isn't. His company has the money to survive, and to support more workers. He should do his part to help fix the economy, by hiring people, instead of weakening it further, by firing them.

Mario The World Champion

Tepig!

Age 41
Male
Western Massachusetts
Seen April 17th, 2017
Posted March 15th, 2017
3,299 posts
18.4 Years
Wow. What a nice employer. To ensure his pockets are still full despite Obama's tax plan, he'll ruin the lives of the people who work for him because he doesn't want Obama to take his money.

All this guy is doing is bullying his employees to make them vote Romney. Plain and simple. This is the "greatest election" ever. And I use that term very loosely.
3DS Friend Code: 0232-8258-5085
Friend Safari: - Meditite, Pancham, Riolu

93Aiwass

Getting Back into Pokemon

Age 35
Female
Boulder, Colorado
Seen December 22nd, 2012
Posted October 20th, 2012
101 posts
10.6 Years
I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


And that's why I'm voting for Aleister Crowley in 2012, because neither option is acceptable.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.

Some explanation on terms: Do what... & Love is... | 93 | Aiwass | Holy Guardian Angel
Getting back into Pokemon after 5 years of being out of it... this is going to be a hard learning curve...
Here is what I look like, in case you were curious.
Babalon is my mother, and she loves me.
I'm an initiate of a secret society... Hmm, do secret societies have websites?

93Aiwass

Getting Back into Pokemon

Age 35
Female
Boulder, Colorado
Seen December 22nd, 2012
Posted October 20th, 2012
101 posts
10.6 Years
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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch-McConnell-vowed-no-cooperation-with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU&feature=related
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Yeah, the Republicans have been docket blocking any piece of legislation that could possibly increase jobs or make this a better place - regardless of whether they themselves agree with the legislation or not.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.

Some explanation on terms: Do what... & Love is... | 93 | Aiwass | Holy Guardian Angel
Getting back into Pokemon after 5 years of being out of it... this is going to be a hard learning curve...
Here is what I look like, in case you were curious.
Babalon is my mother, and she loves me.
I'm an initiate of a secret society... Hmm, do secret societies have websites?

droomph

weeb

Age 26
Male
nowhere spectacular
Seen February 1st, 2017
Posted January 3rd, 2017
4,282 posts
11.7 Years
My god he's dumb.
I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.
I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.

And regarding about the "what about him" problem, good! He doesn't deserve employees if he is so dumb as to oppose the good (at least, better) thing to do.
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
My god he's dumb. I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.
This. Reganomics is basicly the idea that the poor can become rich, by giving the wealthy more money.

One of the people involved with Regan later said that the point behind it was to create a hatred of government intervention, thus allowing them to do away with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole list of other governmental programs.

Frankly though, it doesn't matter who wins this election. Either way, the average person is going to get ****ed over. With Obama, it will be because the Republicans will likely continue with their policy of non-cooperation, even on policies that they usually support, out of pure spite. As for Romney, we are really going to get ****ed by him mainly because no body knows what his real beliefs are, because he changes them every couple of weeks.

That, and Romney's 'business' experience centers around reducing production costs, by outsourcing jobs to other countries that lack worker protections.

Edit - I don't see what is so hard about solving the jobs issue. I've came up with a two point plan that will give us a lot of jobs. It's simple. Round up the illegal immigrants. Deport them, and if both parents are illegals, and their children back to their country of origin.

Khawill

<3

Male
The Cave of Hymns
Seen March 31st, 2023
Posted January 2nd, 2023
1,566 posts
10.7 Years
This story is very amusing to me, there is assuming that he is a greedy person. But have you met him before? I don't see his logic in threatening his workers in such a manner, he is successfully running a company which means he is smart, so he must've known this would give his company a bad name.

This is biased to the bone. I mean I never knew that so many people could see the future, I wish I knew which ones were telling the truth, republicans or democrats. Being neutral I can honestly say that anything we do will be wrong, if we lower taxes the big business makes more money, if we lower it they complain but also retaliate. It's not like other companies are not going to do this, this man is just public about it.

I wish I could live without people who think they can change, predict, or better my future. This man, he is trying to predict the future and he sees a bad and a good one for himself. The bad comes from raised taxes (who knows maybe it won't work) and the good from absolutely no change (which really won't change anything would it? But maybe passiveness would work.)
I'll probably remember this place forever

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.

And regarding about the "what about him" problem, good! He doesn't deserve employees if he is so dumb as to oppose the good (at least, better) thing to do.
When you raise taxes on "the rich" (a.k.a. small business owners who make $250,000 a year before they pay their three employees), revenues actually go down. This is because the rich will take action to avoid paying the additional taxes, or to compensate for their loses. Look what's happening in the socialist hellhole called France! A wealthy businessman just announced that he's completely closing shop, renouncing his French citizenship, and relocating to Belgium. This will result in all of his French workers becoming unemployed, meaning that they too will no longer be paying taxes, further reducing the tax base. The UK is even trying to entice fleeing wealthy Frenchmen to come to their country, so that their tax base will be expanded.

On the other hand, when job creators have lower taxes and regulations to deal with, they will invent more, and hire more workers. When more people have jobs, they will consume more, further stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

The economic theory that contends that increasing taxes on the rich actually decreases revenue is called the Laffer Curve.