You’re so cute when you troll, RR. Maybe someday you’ll get a real job that produces something of value.
Because I might not like it, numbnuts. You said that I might like the results of your work on those apartment complexes. If those apartment complexes are designed for you and your ilk, it’s extremely doubtful that I’ll find that socially useful.
-
You think there are many people making over $250k per year living in an apartment? I can think of one US city where that’s common and a couple more where it wouldn’t be unheard of, but other than that it generally doesn’t happen.
-
Your idea of something being “socially useful” is just bullshit. Take our congressman here–he builds a sandwich shop, and people go there for lunch. Why do they go there? Because they like it. It doesn’t matter whether Frank the lefty dumbass on an internet messageboard thinks that the existence of the sandwich shop is “socially useful” or not–real people go there for lunch every day and spend money. They like it, and you are free to not like it, and you are free to dress up your little “I don’t like it” opinion in terms like “socially useful.”
-
Apartment complexes was just an example of things you may like. I help people invest in all kinds of stuff. You’ve probably used the services of a company that I had a hand in getting off the ground.
In all likelihood, I produce more value by lunch on Monday than you do all week.
Is it possible that there exist investors who would be put off investing in such a venture by understanding their needs from a tax structuring standpoint? I mean, logically speaking, if by your work you provide some people with the assurance to say “Yes, i’ll go ahead with that.” you presumably also provide some people with the assurance to say “No, this isn’t for me.”, no? So you also help people to not invest in things I like.
My portfolio has not benefited one bit from the silly games people like Service Sector played with the US debt ceiling. This idea that some lawyer who isn’t mine makes my life better every day is beyond the Pale.
What? You may want to read the actual words I wrote and just try to understand them.
Yes, and one of the latter cities is yours.
I have not said word one about the Congressman referred to in the OP.
Feel free to name one. Then feel free to demonstrate why I like it.
“the types of things that create jobs”. Really?
When he opens another sandwich shop, does he really create more jobs?
Suppose that area already has X sandwich shops and they sell an average of Y sandwiches per shop a month. So a total of X*Y sandwiches are sold in that area each month. Further, suppose that they’re not turning away customers saying “sorry, there’s too much business, we have no more sandwiches to sell you”. That seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption, especially in the current economy. Anyone seriously disagree with that?
Now, Fleming comes along and opens up another sandwich shop. Is he doing so in the hope that the shops in the area, including his newly introduced shop, will now sell between them a total of (X+1)*Y sandwiches? Does he believe that the presence of his shop will cause the people of the area to begin eating more sandwiches?
Or… is his plan to attract customers away from the current shops? I suspect that’s it. Okay, that’s free enterprise. That’s cool. Seriously, it’s cool. I’m not being sarcastic. That’s how the system works and we all benefit from that.
But… how does it create jobs? It strikes me that all it does is shift jobs from the losing shop or shops to the winning shop or shops. I can’t see how it could do much else. Actually, if enough of the other shops not only lose business but actually go out of business it might actually cause a net loss of jobs since one shop’s fixed overhead is smaller than that of two or three shops.
Increasing supply does not automatically increase business, and thus jobs. What increases business (and jobs) is increasing demand. I know that’s blasphemy to the supply-siders here, but to me and many others it’s simple common sense.
Letting businesses keep more money does not magically create jobs if there is a dearth of demand. At least I can’t see how it does.
Oh, and to jump on the bandwagon… Seriously, wtf are these 6 people eating that costs $200,000 a year?
Even if, as someone suggested, you don’t want to take the word “feed” literally, what the hell are they eating, wearing, and spending on utilities, that costs $200,000 a year? In any case, when was the last time you heard anyone use the word “feed” in that manner?
Faberge egg omelets.
?
I know. I was just using that as an example to illustrate the stupidity of your little “socially useful” concept.
The list is too long. I don’t even know all the names on the list.
Also, you are being rather stupid here (no surprise). The point is not that I personally have made your life better–it’s that people who make over $250k per year are the lifeblood of this country–they start businesses, run businesses, help get businesses started and run well, etc. The country is not run by the people who punch out right when the clock hits 5 (if they even manage to show up to work at all) and get home to their fat wife/husband as soon as possible.
Your point was that you were the representing the partners of the investors. If through your work those investors were convinced that, actually, those partners didn’t understand their needs from a tax structuring standpoint, or that they did but weren’t able to provide what they required, then they wouldn’t invest (or wouldn’t invest as quickly or as much). Not a failure in your role of representation, but a successful communication resulting in no deal being made.
You don’t even know all the names on the list of the companies that offer services that you have had a hand in getting started that have helped me.
OK, frankly, I’ll buy that. Name one.
How about the people who stay a few minutes past 5 and, gasp, DO manage to show up for work regularly, and have skinny spouses who they take their time getting home to? Where do they fit into your world?
Are they at least marginally more useful and worthy of existence than the tardy fat-enspoused clock watchers?
I guess your night’s sleep depends on proving to yourself that I actually am just a leech on society who’s not doing anybody a damn bit of good. So, believe that if you want to. But I think the part you are missing is that my client did in fact have the exact expertise the investor was looking for.
He forgot to mention his 160,000 dollar salary at congress. And of course his fine benefit package.
I don’t see why asking the question proves I think such horrible things about you. I’m perfectly willing to accept that you have helped people invest in things I like. Likewise i’m perfectly willing to believe that, in the situation you specify, all went well and all parties were satisfied. I wouldn’t be “missing that part” unless I doubted that specific; I don’t, and did not. I’m simply asking whether there are some situations where you’ve helped people not invest - as would be entirely reasonable and professional in your job.
I mean, if I thought that in a situation where the investor’s and the parties you represent’s needs were not aligned, yet you successfully completed a deal anyway, wouldn’t that be the best thing for me to suggest as an insomniac determined on your villainy? If i’m correct in my original question, you’re a competent (at worst, even) employee. If I was wrong, then you’d be either a liar or shafting one party or both.
My point, simply, is that you presumably have a hand in helping people not invest in things I like, too. Is it automatically a desperate attempt to frame you as a bad guy just to point out that the flip side of the coin is also likely so?
In my experience, it’s the people working for the rich that make the rich, rich. Imagine my surprise to learn that rich people just kinda have money through some magical process and deign to dole it out to us worker bees out of the kindness of their hearts.
So Day 1 of life in your world is as follows: there’s a rich guy and a bunch of people working for the rich guy. If they didn’t work for him, he wouldn’t be rich! So really he owes everything to the people working for him, he should pay a tax rate that leaves him with just a dollar more than the average worker gets.
What about the fact that the rich guy started the business that employed the people in the first place? Ever think about that? Or that the rich guy could hire different people if the current ones aren’t working out? How do these two things fit into your worldview?
It all makes sense now. You work at Fleming’s Subway shop, don’t you?