The business owners are the ones who create jobs. I just created eight (8) quality jobs that all pay more than twice the minimum wage. My employees will all pay their fair share of income tax. Income from my business will boost me into the highest tax bracket. I have no problem with paying taxes on my income. I have a problem with paying a considerable percentage more than my employees. I have a huge problem with perfectly able-bodied people who don't work, who are content to sit at home hanging out on the porch doing nothing, because welfare "earns" them about $200 less per month than a minimum wage job. They are content to "earn" $200 less than contribute to society. These are the lazy, worthless individuals I am tired of supporting. Put these people to work, let them pay their fair share of taxes, and our country would function a lot better. Our state might have to make fewer budget cuts, especially in critical areas like higher education. Think of the cost savings we could have from all the lower-income earners who now have jobs with health insurance benefits and don't have to go exhaust the charity hospital system. I am tired of grocery shopping and seeing the person in front of me use food stamps and then seeing them in the parking lot climbing into a brand new $20,000+ Dodge Ram (Yeah, its got a Hemi). Something is seriously broken, and my tax dollars just keep getting fed to these leaches. And before you say it, there are some people on welfare that need help, that are disabled, and unable to work. I am just talking about those that can and won't. Here's another swell idea. Lets give a tax rebate to people who don't even pay taxes. That's brilliant. What could be better than free money? Let's reduce the tax rebate of those who actually pay the taxes and give them less of a rebate so that we can give free money to those who never paid in the first place. Someone should win a Darwin award for that idea.
Wow, you have really stepped in it this time. I cannot believe how stupid you think people here must be. Simply owning a company does not affect productivity? How about funding it? What exactly is anyone gonna produce if there is no capitol to start or fund the company? How about some rich people decided to buy stock, which drives up the value of the stock, which creates more cash flow, which allows expansion, which creates more jobs, which pumps more $ into the economy? How about the idle rich guy buys a foundering, cash-poor company and saves it from bankruptcy? How about the rich guy who bankrolls someone who has a good idea, and effort to give, BUT NO $$ TO DO IT, so a new small business is created? ARE YOU FRIGGIN KIDDING ME??? You have already been caught parsing your words between American and Business productivity. Inability to understand?:rofl::rofl: I will be sure to let my original business partner know, who did just what I detailed above(providing me with capitol), that he really does not contribute anything to the economy, much less my productivity - because Red said so. I would have done so much better if I had zero investment at all. I think this is funny, but at this point, I am just unsure. Dude, just give it up.
I will go you one better. As the bill reads now, illegal aliens will be eligible for the "tax rebate" if they have a tax id #, regardless of their illegal status. I really have seen it all.
Wave your hands all you want and try to discredit me, but it's no substitute for an argument. You simply don't understand what productivity is and apparently haven't even tried to. Raising capitol is a vital part of starting a business. Then someone has to do work to make it into a productive business. Stock owners don't do any work. They provide capitol, for which they are rewarded with profits if the company proves to be productive with that capitol. But they can lose money if they are not productive and stockholders cannot affect productivity under either scenario. They can only buy or sell their shares at their whims and desires. Already explained. Simply owning something contributes nothing to productivity. Many people own unproductive businesses. Ownership is a vital part of business, but one has to contribute labor or expertise directly (you know, work) to affect a company's productivity. You're kidding yourself and getting angry instead of learning about what productivity actually is. You are Soooo confused. Not my problem. :dis: I've already made my case and restated it. Why don't you try to make one instead of simply ranting and suggesting that I just shut up? Find me a definition of productivity that might support your contention. Show me an economist that considers rote ownership to be some kind of productivity effort. Geez, I could take your side of this argument and do better.
Is it American or human productivity that you are concerned about? Or physical labor? Total distraction and has nothing to do with reality. But by all means continue on your tangent. Some people might believe you are making a point. Funny how in the same breath, you destroy your own contention and really think nobody here comprehends this. At least you finally get it right. Your inability to keep track of what you say, what you quote, and definitions you list that clearly show you painted yourself into a corner, and certainly are not my problem. If anyone should pay more attention to what you say, it's yourself. Discredit you instead of your argument? Like accusing someone of poor comprehension skills? Pot meet kettle. But I don't need to discredit you or your contention. You have done it to yourself. Although I assume you understand the meaning of contribute and productivity, since you listed several variants that covered exactly what I lined out. Even so, I understand it is not within your capacity to admit you are cold busted. I know the reality of both far better than you do my friend. You assume my anger much as you assume my inability to understand you. Both counts are incorrect and to quote you, "why don't you tell me what you know, instead of telling me what you think I know? I am the world's friggin expert on what I know" While I admit following your gorilla logic can be taxing at times, when you trip over your own arguments, you make it rather easy. Yes, you did, and quickly tore it down all on your own, though again you will not admit it. And if you bothered to read(which of course you did but now ignore) I made the case you are asking for, and mine is based on reality, not theory. It just doesn't work for you, so you choose to ignore it. The really funny part here is you already did. You just figured everyone was too dense to catch it. :lol:
So, now you attempt to invoke others as agreeing with you. :lol: Funny, they aren't actually flocking to your defense. Again, it's a poor substitute for an actual rebuttle. You want productivity to mean something that it does not. Sorry, but its already well defined and I've explained it enough for any rational person to understand my point. I made my point, you made yours, and now you're just being contrary. I'm done here. So go ahead and make another "Nyah, nyah" post.
Who is flocking to yours? Other people have chimed in this thread and my rep points, as you well know. Where is your support, amigo? I want nothing of the kind. I used a definition you supplied that included investment, to show that you are splitting hairs in order to avoid admitting you are wrong. You did it to yourself. Is this like invoking people to your defense? The poor substitute for rebuttal thingy you just mentioned? :hihi: Ya got caught tripping over yourself. I just pointed it out. If I were you, I would be done also.
I'm totally behind dude here but just refuse to argue with someone who won't admit when they're wrong. You say the idle rich don't add to national productivity. You are wrong. They don't add in the way a ditch digger, insurance salesman, or 250k a year exec but they add to the economy. Investing in companies and having ownership in something is a vital part of business. Someone has to take on the risk of the venture. They risk financial ruin as they sit "idle". May not be the way you are productive but it is necessary for our economy to go. Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, the question that we all try to argue is what is that fair share. One thing I know for sure is it shouldn't be based off of what someone does for a living or how other people see their value.
