Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 13:29
    @handyandy said
    No.
    Thanks. A lot of people would find a guy like that in conflict with their thinking, regarding the businessman being better off than others. They think it is a disease, and not fair, or something.
  2. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 13:31
    @philokalia said
    Pretty good response, avg. Joe.

    You know, Muhammad Ali brought his massive attitude into the ring for a reason. It was effective in creating the atmosphere that he thrived in. Sometimes you hear that it is almost necessary for athletes to be massively arrogant and super confident -- it is what enables them to perform on such a large level.
    Why couldn't I have said that? A great clarifying point of view! The guy worked hard and achieved. No regulations!!
  3. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 13:35
    @wolfgang59 said
    Judging by your posts your children are in dire need of a
    "philanthropy advisor", however you are probably referring to
    some church-goer who wants money to help "spread the Word".

    Just let your children be exposed to a myriad of beliefs
    and attitudes and let them make up their own minds.

    And put your money into helping the homeless.
    Thanks for your advice. For the record, my number One campaign is to help kids 'At Risk'. There are many of those out there. Now, you talk about a group that needs help! Google kids (children) at risk.
  4. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23554
    12 Feb '19 14:08
    @kingdavid403 said
    No, I do not. If you are making over 10 million a year, a 70% tax is a give away to someone who already has enough. I think it should be 90% taxed. America made you wealthy or gave you the opportunity to be wealthy, so now it's time to help America back out you greedy sob. Simple as that.
    It is 70% on "income". Much of the super rich wealth is not legally income and will not be taxed. There are legal loopholes allowing them to legally shield some of their "income" from taxes.
    "....the United States is considered something of a tax haven. Flexible entity structures, corporate tax breaks and tax-favored capital gains can result in a relatively low tax burden, making it an attractive place to do business (just ask Mascherano). In addition, Delaware and Nevada have tax structures and corporate laws considered favorable in many parts of the world. Both states offer attractive legal protections to corporations, including strong liability protection, as well as a degree of anonymity for corporate owners. The court system is favorable, too: Delaware even has its own "Chancery Court," an equity court that focuses largely on corporate matters." NOTEL This is from a Forbes article, generally not considered a left wing periodical.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/04/10/the-panama-papers-where-are-the-americans/#6ce4f7e06f76
  5. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23554
    12 Feb '19 14:16
    @AverageJoe1, if it is revealed that Trump is guilty of felonies such as money laundering and cheating on taxes, would you still approve of his presidency? Please note I said IF. I'm guessing the House will demand to see his tax returns and we have yet to see Mueller's report.
  6. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81911
    12 Feb '19 14:29
    @phranny said
    @AverageJoe1, if it is revealed that Trump is guilty of felonies such as money laundering and cheating on taxes, would you still approve of his presidency? Please note I said IF. I'm guessing the House will demand to see his tax returns and we have yet to see Mueller's report.
    "if it is revealed that Trump is guilty of felonies such as money laundering and cheating on taxes"

    Such a stupid question. It was revealed several democrats are complicit in crime, h Clinton, comey McCabe, I cant even name them all, but you support them.

    Nothing, zero has been proven on Trump. All you are seeing is the "insurance policy" being put in place.
  7. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    12 Feb '19 14:31
    @averagejoe1 said
    Thanks. A lot of people would find a guy like that in conflict with their thinking, regarding the businessman being better off than others. They think it is a disease, and not fair, or something.
    I think you're exaggerating. I don't believe most people automatically disapprove of others successful in their line of work.
  8. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 14:49
    @phranny said
    @AverageJoe1, if it is revealed that Trump is guilty of felonies such as money laundering and cheating on taxes, would you still approve of his presidency? Please note I said IF. I'm guessing the House will demand to see his tax returns and we have yet to see Mueller's report.
    I am with you, absolutely not. Of course not, it should go without saying for all of us. Pence would become our President and we would move on. I love this country with its safeguards, checks and balances, and machinery that covers us if there is ever a 'wrong' man in the presidency. There may be some implication that all of us conservatives just love Trump. Naaa, he is no role model. Neither is Bill Clinton, blah blah. But we DO love his approach to getting this country on the right track, what accomplishments he has made.
  9. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 14:57
    @handyandy said
    I think you're exaggerating. I don't believe most people automatically disapprove of others successful in their line of work.
    You are putting me on? Dems and libs do not like rich successful people and want to punish them. Obama, who by now is worth close to a billion, was the first on the scene. "Spread the wealth around". Not being a businessman, but rather a politician who knew squat, he did not realize that the rich make our country rich. Trump realizes that,,,,though it doesn't take much to figure it out on your own.

    One among us here a while back said that a deli should share the profits of his business with the employees who 'built his business'. This, in effect, is telling the businessman that he cannot excel with his business. He thus cannot be successful.
  10. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 15:01
    @phranny said
    It is 70% on "income". Much of the super rich wealth is not legally income and will not be taxed. There are legal loopholes allowing them to legally shield some of their "income" from taxes.
    "....the United States is considered something of a tax haven. Flexible entity structures, corporate tax breaks and tax-favored capital gains can result in a relatively low tax burden, ...[text shortened]... forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/04/10/the-panama-papers-where-are-the-americans/#6ce4f7e06f76
    Yes, there are loopholes. The worst is that investors (you, me, the rich) do not have to pay taxes on income from Municipal bonds. That should be the first to go.

    As folks here continue to mention taxation, I notice that liberals NEVER mention spending. Never. I personally think that government spending should be addressed big time. Then we wouldn't need all those taxes from the rich people so that they can continue to create an environment that you and I can get rich in. Or, an environment to go fishing. All good.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    12 Feb '19 15:41
    @averagejoe1 said
    You are putting me on? Dems and libs do not like rich successful people and want to punish them. Obama, who by now is worth close to a billion, was the first on the scene. "Spread the wealth around". Not being a businessman, but rather a politician who knew squat, he did not realize that the rich make our country rich. Trump realizes that,,,,though it doesn't take much ...[text shortened]... ct, is telling the businessman that he cannot excel with his business. He thus cannot be successful.
    So you think any degree of profit sharing with employees is harmful to the profitability of a company? That profit sharing cannot motivate employees to work harder and innovate to work smarter? That only the owner of a company can make it succeed?
  12. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23554
    12 Feb '19 17:53
    @mott-the-hoople said
    "if it is revealed that Trump is guilty of felonies such as money laundering and cheating on taxes"

    Such a stupid question. It was revealed several democrats are complicit in crime, h Clinton, comey McCabe, I cant even name them all, but you support them.

    Nothing, zero has been proven on Trump. All you are seeing is the "insurance policy" being put in place.
    As I said, IF Trump is found guilty. Those you listed have either not had evidence to merit an investigation or were investigated and not found guilty of a crime.
  13. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    12 Feb '19 17:57
    @averagejoe1 said
    You are putting me on? Dems and libs do not like rich successful people and want to punish them. Obama, who by now is worth close to a billion, was the first on the scene. "Spread the wealth around". Not being a businessman, but rather a politician who knew squat, he did not realize that the rich make our country rich. Trump realizes that,,,,though it doesn't take much ...[text shortened]... ct, is telling the businessman that he cannot excel with his business. He thus cannot be successful.
    Your ignorance about "Dems and libs" matches your taste for stale GOP baloney.
  14. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23554
    12 Feb '19 17:57
    @averagejoe1 said
    Yes, there are loopholes. The worst is that investors (you, me, the rich) do not have to pay taxes on income from Municipal bonds. That should be the first to go.

    As folks here continue to mention taxation, I notice that liberals NEVER mention spending. Never. I personally think that government spending should be addressed big time. Then we wouldn't need all t ...[text shortened]... create an environment that you and I can get rich in. Or, an environment to go fishing. All good.
    We do mention spending. Many liberals feel too much is spent on the military. In a sense we do criticize spending. Because of the welfare given to employers, taxpayers must pay for food, health care, shelter and housing for the working poor. If we had a decent minimum wage, those individuals would be far less likely to need my tax dollar. Instead, businesses get a great handout by being able to pay wages below what is needed to survive.
  15. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30018
    12 Feb '19 18:09
    @js357 said
    So you think any degree of profit sharing with employees is harmful to the profitability of a company? That profit sharing cannot motivate employees to work harder and innovate to work smarter? That only the owner of a company can make it succeed?
    No, there are indeed 'profit sharing' programs.... Bonuses being the main one. A typical biz model is wages for the mail room guys, salaries for sales people, HR people, commissions for those who wish to make money depending upon their production. Choices. So at end of year, bonuses are given to each and every employee depending on the year's profits. I own the biz, I borrowed money from Uncle Vinny in Brooklyn (risk), I took a chance on buying a building (risk), and so forth, signed a mortgage and biz note at the bank.(risk) So, In come the persons I hire. They have NOTHING to do with my risk or voting rights or anything.

    At the end of the year, after all my expenses and all of the above, there is a pile of money on the table that is left over. I think it should belong to me. I will then make a speech that if they really work hard (imagine Barack saying that!) that there will be larger bonuses from the company (that I own) at the end of the next years.

    Now back at 'ya...... This degree of profit sharing is not harmful to the profitability of the company. Actually, the bonuses serve to increase it. This is also the answer to your second question.

    As the owner of the company, I have to make it succeed by hiring the right people. It is silly to suggest that 'only the owner makes it succeed' , as I have to have a guy in the mail room deliver a letter to the sales guy about a possible deal to be made with the Ajax Company. Sales guy connects up the Commission guy and the deal is made. They will get large bonus at end of year, and I, being the nucleus of the whole matter, I guess, can get a tad of credit for borrowing the money from Uncle Vinny and taking the risk to build a company that is succeeding.

    I feel that liberal-think is to say that I incurred a 'debt' to all these people at some time in my life, maybe when I was born. The company is paying them to do a job, I own the company. You surely see somewhat of a gap between us??

    What do you think should happen to that pile of money on the table? I'm just trying to do a thorough debate here.
Back to Top