How did we get to this scene? Are you Leon Gucci?
If you had seen the way that flight attendants throw themselves at male pilots, you would realize how silly your comment was.
Did I say that I was a minority? I thought I said “mixed race”.
How have we done that?
There’s nothing quite like a political party based on promoting hatred, lies, and free money.
[/quote]
Free Money?
Free Money?
Ahh, the “she was asking for it” defense. Or as close as could be pulled off today.
“It” being, of course, marriage to a captain who makes good money. That’s what they’re after.
And did you see how they were dressed!
Right, which is what a proper woman is supposed to do. Stay home and make babies. Careers are for white men.
But this once, I’m not the one who’s mistaken. Or wrong. Or lying. You are. And you keep doing it over and over and over again.
Then why do you keep bitching about taxes if they don’t worry you anymore?
How can they be your problem when you don’t have any problems or cares? Which is it, liar: do you have problems or not?
It’s the government!
And those meddling kids!
Get off my lawn!
I don’t know who you’re trying to bullshit here, but I’m old enough to distinctly remember the 60’s, including commercial airline flights. In addition my wife’s father was a commercial passenger airline pilot. He was flying 747’s for Eastern when it self-destructed. He became a flight instructor for Airbus, until his death three years ago. (Coincidentally or not, of cancer, and he wasn’t yet 65.) Two of my wife’s first cousins and one close friend are airline flight attendants today. I have a fair amount of personal experience with airline personnel of that period. So don’t try to pass off your nonsense as if it had even tangential attachment to reality.
Your comments about airline staff are disgustingly insulting because they are untrue. They are as ridiculous as all the other bullshit statements you’ve made in this thread.
Let me take just one, your assertion that the only reason you don’t hire more employees is lack of money, caused by paying taxes. Only a partisan asshole spouting partisan asininity would maintain that they would love to hire more people just to hire more people, if only they had more money lying around. And only an even bigger asshole would maintain that their business could expand, they could accept new accounts, and could make a bigger profit, but refuse to do so because they lack extra cash sitting around in a cookie jar.
Real business owners, faced with a situation wherein they could take on more business and make more profit but need to hire staff to do so, will hire the fucking staff no matter what, even if they need to take out a loan to do it because, as anybody but you can deduce, hiring that person and accepting that new business will make them more money.
You don’t really own a business at all, do you?
Nope, taxes are a citizens duty.
TANSTAAFL, we’ve got to pay for what the government does for us.
No matter how studly and independent you may think you are, the government provides you with many services which you would find it hard to do without.
The teapartier’s penchant for demanding those service for free makes em look like a bunch of wannabe 60’s welfare queens.
I’m beginning to think that you have problems.
Morella, here’s the thing. Suppose you hire somebody, and the total cost of adding that person to your company (salary, insurance, equipment, maintenance, fuel) is $100,000. That person must enable you to do more than $100,000 in new business or you wouldn’t hire him at all, regardless of the taxes. Suppose it’s $150,000, for a $50,000 profit. Yes, the government will tax you on some percentage of that. I don’t know the exact percentage, but I’m sure it’s less than 100%.
So explain to us how the tax rate can turn a profit into a loss.
You mean, when the unions destroyed it? I was there for the Eastern/Orion affair.
Was it skin cancer? If so, you might have a chance to get in on argument and advance the gay agenda here.
In this venue, your opinion is as valid as mine.
They are true, based on my observations, which we are comparing to your understanding of your father-in-law’s observations, correct?
Someone else has already made this ridiculous point, and I will refer you to my previous answer. No one has said anything about hiring people just to have them around. Think of something new.
By “cookie jar”, you are referring to venture capital? Please, tell me how one goes about hiring people without spending money on resources and training, much less how to do it without money to meet payroll. I am always ready to learn something new.
What sort of business are you in, or are you just guessing?
I believe I have answered that question.
Like what? Chinese windmills? Welfare payments?
They aren’t asking for anything for free. They are asking the federal government to obey the Constitution.
Yup, the federal government should keep its hands off their Medicare.
Except for the fourteenth amendment. And the first amendment. And all the other amendments they don’t like, and all the new ones they wish were in there. Yeah, they like the constitution just fine.
Actually, the government will tax me on the money that I put into the equipment as well (assets are not expenses), and I spend as much on taxes as I do on fuel. To hire this person, I have to match his social security, buy his health insurance, pay for workman’s comp, maintain employee services, etc., ad nauseum (the more people you hire, the more the government makes you do). To put this person on staff, at, say, $40,000 a year, I have to spend nearly twice that. Couple that with the initial outlay of $100,000, which is reasonable for training, and I’m out $100,000 down, $80,000 a year for this asset, not including the money that I have to spend to buy equipment for him to use, which is NOT a tax deduction (remember, assest != expense).
Now, for my $100,000 down and $80,000 a year (to start, that will go up), how much is this employee going to make for me? $50,000? And that’s only if the employee works out, right? I mean, he could just take off and quit, or I might have to fire him. That’s a lot of risk for me to have to take.
Suppose, since the point we’re trying to make is that high taxes lead to unemployment, that the tax rate was 100%. In this case, I spend all of this money, and there is no way to get any of it back. My business loses money, I can’t pay my bills, and I go under. Could we agree that a 100% tax rate will lead to unemployment?
Now suppose we go with 50%. So, maybe this employee will work out…if so, he’s going to make me $50,000, you say? But half of that, I have to pay in taxes, so I’m gambling that he will return $25,000…not really much.
As you can see, hiring an employee is always a risk, but as the tax rate goes up, it becomes less and less attractive.
You’re quoting Obama now? Is that all you’ve got left?