anybody here ever build their business?
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tanstaafl wag the finger
You didn't use the right term as a foreigner so he's going to act like it doesn't fit. His fine state is the by far biggest welfare state in the US and yet they continue to strive to shoot down every social welfare program (which pale in comparison to the public water projects which make their life possible). I just read this page today actually - see the complete paragraph in the middle of the page:
http://goo.gl/ICJ7u
how much sense does it make to guarantee one party your vote? not much to this cracker.
ermmm....that's a jewie thing (nttawwt - jesus was a jew)
- unlike other tbaggers, i like drinkable water, so EPA needs to stay.
- being muslim or an atheist does not disqualify one from serving in public office, nor warrant disproportionate scrutiny
- i like the more droneable approach to afghanistan/pakistan, something bush was shy about
- we have too much influence in other countries' politics, as evidenced by our shoveling a never-ending supply of borrowed cash
- i realize shipping all the illegal aliens out of our country is both intractable & inhumane
are those bona fides good enough for you? they're good enough for me
God how easy of an excuse it is to pretend you are that slow. If you claim to be a republican it doesn't mean you sign an imaginary paper with the socialist devil and have to vote for that party or else the dark lord forces you to hire 10 gay Somali cripples who believe Jesus and Justin Bieber are the same person.
Again, don't pretend to be slow. You clearly realize I used the tea party comparison to show your "I R independant, politikz iz bad" approach. They also in the end ended almost (fully??) 100% republican even though they claimed to be "unaffiliated". See the similarity and the point for comparison? I didn't call you a tea bagger so don't play stupid.
Stinkle your own state proves the government was essential not only to build businesses but the cities themselves. Without the government you wouldn't have the water to survive. The public water projects that built the West are some the largest government projects ever completed in the history of the country. A vast majority of these projects make no fiscal sense whatsoever and ignoring that the scale is far outside the scope of private enterprises. Without the government much of the West would be nothing.
Last edited:
couple observations:
- no one here, nor in any linked article, claimed the gov't was not essential in getting cities/munis to where they are today
- if the gov't is essential to my survival, it is nothing short of an indictment on its creep into our lives
i do not choose to live like those who lived here centuries before, but acknowledge they did it
your post reads like you believe the gov't is our savior, and if so believed, i can then understand the demand we must genuflect under its glorious presence. i do not see the gov't in that role, but rather to manage & in rare times curtail the actions of the people. it's unfortunate the t-tards have co-opted the founding fathers rhetoric; it would otherwise fit nicely here.
Its a statement of fact, much of the West wouldn't exist without these public water projects. These projects were pushed into existence by conservatives and big business (especially the agriculture sector in CA) just as the book mentions. And they are not sustainable which is the point of the Cadillac Desert. It's likely there will be a breaking point just as there has been in the distant past in the Americas when other large droughts have wipeout cities in arid areas or when the climate changes. Significant lifestyle changes and possibly even migrations will be necessary - the DoD actively models those scenarios these days.
http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244/
http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244/
Last edited:
I have a funny philosophy about taxes:
Whatever stimulates the economy.
Should business pay more taxes because they own it to the government for supplying necessary?
But will businesses want to open up in places where government services are limited by tax revenue?
I always point about the standard of living in the Bay Area. Yes the costs here are extremely high, but why doesn't Google & Genetech move to Arkansas or South Dakota? Because the standard of living here is very high, which attracts the best talent that these companies need to exist.
And because no one wants to live in a segregated community, the standard of living is high for most of the people, not just the rich.
Whatever stimulates the economy.
Should business pay more taxes because they own it to the government for supplying necessary?
But will businesses want to open up in places where government services are limited by tax revenue?
I always point about the standard of living in the Bay Area. Yes the costs here are extremely high, but why doesn't Google & Genetech move to Arkansas or South Dakota? Because the standard of living here is very high, which attracts the best talent that these companies need to exist.
And because no one wants to live in a segregated community, the standard of living is high for most of the people, not just the rich.
Here is a thought...7% across the board flat tax on your net worth. No shelters, no exemptions, just pay. Thoughts?
In the 1800s they used to tax people on net material worth. I have read deeds that include incredibly detailed lists of household possessions. I suspect that the practice was dropped for good reason.
won't that reduce your assets to ash if you don't earn at least 7% per annum?
what if you operate at a loss, due to your or others' negligence? is this not effectively double taxation?
why should the gov't continue to tax the same pile of cash year after year?
for those just scraping by, 7% can be crippling.
what has always confused me is how something can be arbitrarily valued; if there's a warehouse w/ a million rotary phones, it may have "value", but no *market* value. if the owner were not able to pay this tax on an asset w/ no market value, how would the gov't collect? debtor's prison?
Okay, based on net income?
(I am not a numbers/tax code guy at all...)
(I am not a numbers/tax code guy at all...)
You answered your own question.
The issue here is what is considered "income" (my limited understanding of the issues with a flat tax). Like $tinkle points out, if your income is from investments and you are taxed at 7%, but your investments are only paying say 5%, then you are screwed.
What about a CEO who make $1 in annual salary (Steve Jobs)? Is he to only pay $.07 in taxes on that and be good to go? He's dead now, but there are others.
Oh man FB is over run by this crap today.
Here's one that showed up on my homepage/newsfeed/whatevertheycallit.
The best part was this comment!
not sure which is funnier: that pic, or the ensuing hilarity from "my base" now that i've also thrown this up on my wall
1000 internets to you if your crackpot friends can top the aforementioned comment.
The fact you think there are items with no value really amuses me. Especially after taking a stand as a "business starter". Everything has value and can be sold. It's just a factor of the right price, presentation and the right buyer. Hell the Italians from Neapoli managed to sold 6 milion euro worth of trash to the Sweedes last year. Though it's probably easier to assume something has no value and complain about the Socialist Islamic Kenyans.
and your feeble attempt to defend a speculative free market mindset - unknowingly - troubles me
"no value" != "no market value"
daft much?
Probably true, he didn't even fire his own bricks like they do in Russia.
I must be dumb because what's the differance between no value and no market value? I though if something had no value in a given market you looked for a new market, not complained about no market value? Though to be honest I'm just trying to pretend the I'm too stupid to understand game you play so often in here.
Also I thought you were a sucker for moar free marketz.
btw. Wouldn't a net worth tax increase spending because everything depreciates in value outside of savings (not incl. inflation)
Huhwhat? If your investments return 5%, you would pay 7% (a non-existent tax rate, but I'll go with it) on that 5%, not on the 100%. You would keep 93% of the 5% profit, or 4.65%.
No he actually points out to something my drunk persona didn't notice - if it's a net worth tax not income tax you have to earn more than you loose from your net worth tax. If you don't you would bleed cash. I'm not sure if I'm more drunk for not thinking about that or agreeing with $tinkle
Just know that I have a cricket bat, and you have kneecaps.
Or I could get all Lebowski-nihilist on you if you want, instead.
Your communist colonial paddle doesn't scare me. Unless you mean to make me watch an entire cricket match (or whatever they call them... "parade?"). That's some Guantanamo ****, right there.
Did you see the latest review:
This bike is ****ing ridiculous. Every time I get on it, it brings the white satan out of me. It just wants to do bad bad things.
Is it me or did I take his remarks as "Hey, if you succeeded at something, anything in this life, you probably owe someone for helping you achieve that success, like a parent, teacher, mentor, friend, etc."? If this isn't the case, then why do atheletes always point to the cameraman way up in the lights of the stadium or arena and say "thank you" ????
Why are you guys all posting in a troll thread started by someone who was recently unemployed and has spent the majority of his life sucking off the government teat in one way or another?
The only $tinkle's built is a pile of bull**** and maybe a closeted gay kid. Not exactly producer material, y'know?
The only $tinkle's built is a pile of bull**** and maybe a closeted gay kid. Not exactly producer material, y'know?
someone didnt take their happy pills todays...