CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected Page 3

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
And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.
Goody gumdrops. Let them riot. Maybe they should actually work and actually pay taxes (the government there consistently brings in significantly less than they accounted for. How do you budget like that?).

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.
It should be 50-50, yes. But how does tax increases on just the richest mean the pain is being shared and that it isn't concentrated to one class? O_o

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.
Very true. I think math and science should be things the Government should invest in, foster, and support. I'm thinking maybe Freaky meant "invest" instead of "invent"?

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.
They don't need more workers though, not unless they bring manufacturing back in full-force. For the buildings and infrastructure in place, they don't need "needless" employees. It works as it is. They also see record profits because:
- They cut enough nationally to still be totally functional
- Other jobs went overseas where it is more cost efficient
- And yet, people continue to buy their products even though they can no longer afford it. This will bite a lot of people in the butt eventually.

The jobs that exist here now are managerial. Manufacturing is gone. We switched to service-oriented, but that is low paying and also going overseas. Not everyone is qualified to be in business or be a doctor or a lawyer or something specialized like that. Other sectors need to be restored here, so that everyone can again be able to get a private-sector job

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 should be 50-50, yes. But how does tax increases on just the richest mean the pain is being shared and that it isn't concentrated to one class? O_o
The spending cuts will hit programs that effect the middle class more then they effect the top 1%.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
The spending cuts will hit programs that effect the middle class more then they effect the top 1%.
Kay. But, there's no wealth outside of the insanely wealthy 1%? Why can't moderately wealthy or upper-middle-class people get taxed too?

droomph

weeb

Age 26
Male
nowhere spectacular
Seen February 1st, 2017
Posted January 3rd, 2017
4,282 posts
11.7 Years
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.
However, explain why most rich people seem to have mansions and do nothing to help except complain about their taxes and protest. Believe me, my family is pretty rich, living in California and whatnot, so I can understand that "tax increase" thing. I would be pretty pissed too, and I am, with paying 10% sales tax. However, being rich makes us snobby, as you want to keep money rather than spend. Believe me, I know. I would never spend the $100 I have for charity unless 1) there was some reward or 2) I would get in deep trouble if I didn't. I would never spend it, I would never help people with it, if I were just to be a normal person.

I'm not saying take all their money away, because that would no doubt hurt the economy as the situation you've proposed, but make them equals to the poor in percentage, if not slightly more. Tax cuts aren't good for us, if it's put on anyone, poor or rich.

However, creating more jobs is just as important as spreading the wealth. Show me a way that the upper class will readily actually do make jobs, and I will support that plan. Theory is not enough - people are not machines, they don't follow the simulations.
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.
If we want companies to hire more American workers, we have to make it cheaper to hire here in America than it is to hire in India and China.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
We are never going to get labor that low unless we repeal the majority of our worker protections, or decide to force students to work in factorys as part of their education.

I've said this a couple of times, quickest most effective way to get more jobs would be to round up illegal immigrants and deport them back to their home country. Addon to this, but heavily fine companys found to knowingly have employed illegal immigrants.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
We are never going to get labor that low unless we repeal the majority of our worker protections, or decide to force students to work in factorys as part of their education.

I've said this a couple of times, quickest most effective way to get more jobs would be to round up illegal immigrants and deport them back to their home country. Addon to this, but heavily fine companys found to knowingly have employed illegal immigrants.
Workers protections should be dealt with on an individual basis. Laws like that interfere with the freedom to contract between employees and their employer. All they do is price unskilled workers out of a job. If someone's labor is only worth $5 an hour, then I should be able to pay him or her $5 an hour.

Companies resort to hiring illegal immigrants because they're willing to work for what their labor is worth, while those companies must pay American workers artificially inflated prices. Blaming immigrants is ignorant.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
Workers protections should be dealt with on an individual basis. Laws like that interfere with the freedom to contract between employees and their employer. All they do is price unskilled workers out of a job. If someone's labor is only worth $5 an hour, then I should be able to pay him or her $5 an hour.

Companies resort to hiring illegal immigrants because they're willing to work for what their labor is worth, while those companies must pay American workers artificially inflated prices. Blaming immigrants is ignorant.
And if you are paying them $5 an hour, then then the product they are making should be priced so a person making that item will be able to afford it.

I'm not blaming immigrants. They want to get a green card, come here legally, thats great. I'm just wanting to get rid of the ones who are here illegally. You know, the ones that are a drain on our welfare, medicare, and education systems?

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
And if you are paying them $5 an hour, then then the product they are making should be priced so a person making that item will be able to afford it.

I'm not blaming immigrants. They want to get a green card, come here legally, thats great. I'm just wanting to get rid of the ones who are here illegally. You know, the ones that are a drain on our welfare, medicare, and education systems?
Products would be priced lower if money wasn't created by the Fed out of thin air at such an alarming rate. The more abundant money is, the less valuable each individual dollar is. This means that it will take more dollars to buy the same product.

You just explained how to get illegal immigrants to leave. It would cost a lot of money to roundup and deport all of the ones that are currently here; however, if we stop giving them benefits that are already scarce for the American citizens who benefit from them, then they might think twice about coming here illegally.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
However, explain why most rich people seem to have mansions and do nothing to help except complain about their taxes and protest. Believe me, my family is pretty rich, living in California and whatnot, so I can understand that "tax increase" thing. I would be pretty pissed too, and I am, with paying 10% sales tax. However, being rich makes us snobby, as you want to keep money rather than spend. Believe me, I know. I would never spend the $100 I have for charity unless 1) there was some reward or 2) I would get in deep trouble if I didn't. I would never spend it, I would never help people with it, if I were just to be a normal person.
Ooo, 10% tales tax. Come over here XD We got 13% sales tax (used to be 15% until fairly recently) and 50% income tax alone (plus other taxes and governmental fees) if you make $130,000 (which, I would consider middle class? Like, the next tax bracket down is $45,000 which seems really low for middle class. There is also no tax bracket above the 50% one. So, richer don't pay more)

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
Products would be priced lower if money wasn't created by the Fed out of thin air at such an alarming rate. The more abundant money is, the less valuable each individual dollar is. This means that it will take more dollars to buy the same product.

You just explained how to get illegal immigrants to leave. It would cost a lot of money to roundup and deport all of the ones that are currently here; however, if we stop giving them benefits that are already scarce for the American citizens who benefit from them, then they might think twice about coming here illegally.
And if money is less valuable, then it shouldn't be a issue to pay more of it to your workers.

Denying them benefits would remove some, however their will still be a lot left over that would have to be rounded up. In this case, denying them benefits is about as effective as trade embargos with hostile countries, sure it will hurt them a bit but it's not going to stop them.

droomph

weeb

Age 26
Male
nowhere spectacular
Seen February 1st, 2017
Posted January 3rd, 2017
4,282 posts
11.7 Years
Ooo, 10% tales tax. Come over here XD We got 13% sales tax (used to be 15% until fairly recently) and 50% income tax alone (plus other taxes and governmental fees) if you make $130,000 (which, I would consider middle class? Like, the next tax bracket down is $45,000 which seems really low for middle class. There is also no tax bracket about the 50% one. So, richer don't pay more)
I'm not saying that I'm the worst off - I'm sure 10% is nothing compared with what you live with. However, even with that, my parents are looking to "import" expensive things like computers from Oregon (ie no tax), so I can tell that raising taxes unfairly (and in this case, fairly but harshly) would hurt the economy.
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
I'm not saying that I'm the worst off - I'm sure 10% is nothing compared with what you live with. However, even with that, my parents are looking to "import" expensive things like computers from Oregon (ie no tax), so I can tell that raising taxes unfairly (and in this case, fairly but harshly) would hurt the economy.
Yes, understood.

(Also did not mean to come off as standoffish)

droomph

weeb

Age 26
Male
nowhere spectacular
Seen February 1st, 2017
Posted January 3rd, 2017
4,282 posts
11.7 Years
And if money is less valuable, then it shouldn't be a issue to pay more of it to your workers.

Denying them benefits would remove some, however their will still be a lot left over that would have to be rounded up. In this case, denying them benefits is about as effective as trade embargos with hostile countries, sure it will hurt them a bit but it's not going to stop them.
I don't support doing that first.

Fix the bottom, then look towards the top. Our "bottom" to be "fixed" is our "broken" tax system, not our illegal immigrants. Sure, while they might be an inconvenience to our recovery, they aren't the base if things to deal with.
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
Products would be priced lower if money wasn't created by the Fed out of thin air at such an alarming rate. The more abundant money is, the less valuable each individual dollar is. This means that it will take more dollars to buy the same product.
Yes. But while prices for good and services go up to compensate, wages do not. Every year you work, the more money you lose. Which is sad.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
And if money is less valuable, then it shouldn't be a issue to pay more of it to your workers.

Denying them benefits would remove some, however their will still be a lot left over that would have to be rounded up. In this case, denying them benefits is about as effective as trade embargos with hostile countries, sure it will hurt them a bit but it's not going to stop them.
A dollar will always be a dollar. It loses value if it buys less than before.

We can solve much of our unemployment problems by cutting taxes, reducing regulations, getting rid of the unions, and dealing with illegals.

Yes. But while prices for good and services go up to compensate, wages do not. Every year you work, the more money you lose. Which is sad.
Wages wouldn't need to go up if prices didn't go up as fast as they do. Thank our fiat monetary system for that!

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
A dollar will always be a dollar. It loses value if it buys less than before.

We can solve much of our unemployment problems by cutting taxes, reducing regulations, getting rid of the unions, and dealing with illegals.
Yes, but wages should match inflation. If we required this, it would in theory provide another way for inflation to be kept in check. Or cause even more inflation. Either way would be good. (Way 1 would control inflation, way 2 would show that we need to better control, or get rid of, the Fed. Either way, its progress.)

The problem is education though. Most of the unemployment is unskilled labor, we are actually having issues filling skilled labor positions. Personally, I'd love to see some of that defense budget moved over to education. This would be done by reducing military costs, by shutting down unneeded military bases in other countries, (Our military is for protecting us, not *insert country here*.), and by completely shutting down the failing F22 Raptor Project. (Which, we should reopen sometime in the future after we get some more skilled people to work on it.)

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Yes, but wages should match inflation. If we required this, it would in theory provide another way for inflation to be kept in check. Or cause even more inflation. Either way would be good. (Way 1 would control inflation, way 2 would show that we need to better control, or get rid of, the Fed. Either way, its progress.)

The problem is education though. Most of the unemployment is unskilled labor, we are actually having issues filling skilled labor positions. Personally, I'd love to see some of that defense budget moved over to education. This would be done by reducing military costs, by shutting down unneeded military bases in other countries, (Our military is for protecting us, not *insert country here*.), and by completely shutting down the failing F22 Raptor Project. (Which, we should reopen sometime in the future after we get some more skilled people to work on it.)
Requiring certain wage rates by law hurts unskilled workers the most by pricing them out of jobs.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
Requiring certain wage rates by law hurts unskilled workers the most by pricing them out of jobs.
Not rates, just that you can have a cost-of-living increase. Just so you're not making less money every year

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
Requiring certain wage rates by law hurts unskilled workers the most by pricing them out of jobs.
Inflation effects unskilled labor as well. If what their labor is geared towards is more expensive due to inflation, then they should be paid more as well.