Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[The Rabbi]

Once again you are a ******* moron ......................

sub·si·dy
ˈsəbsədē/
noun
plural noun: subsidies

1. 1.
   a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
   "a farm subsidy"
   • a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.
   • a grant or contribution of money.
     

     synonyms:

     grant, allowance, endowment, contribution, donation, bursary, handout;More backing, support, sponsorship, finance, funding; formalbenefaction "the theater receives a subsidy of 1.7 million dollars a year"

     [TBODY] [/TBODY]
2. 2.
   historical
   a parliamentary grant to the sovereign for state needs.

We went down this road with the other moron already, see definition #1.
There is no mention of employee(s) receiving shit as it would do little to keep the price low or competitive.

Payroll taxes are paid in part by the employee and matched in part by the employer, even donating money to a worker who you perceive as under paid will actually not only negate any benefits but would actually deepen the governments indebtedness.

Hey Moron, sales tax comes from the sale of goods, you are arguing that giving dollars in aid will bring pennies in taxes ......................

subsidy
/ˈsʌbsɪdɪ/
noun (pl) -dies
1.
a financial aid supplied by a government, as to industry, for reasons of public welfare, the balance of payments, etc
2.
(English history) a financial grant made originally for special purposes by Parliament to the Crown
3.
any monetary contribution, grant, or aid

Make an argument that a tax deduction isn't aid.

Payroll taxes will triple. The business side is deductible.

The minimum wage will triple. What do you think will happen to sale tax receipts?

A tax deduction is not aid.
You don't know what you're talking about.

ALL deductions and exemptions and credits should be eliminated, for persons and corportations.

Every dime of income should be taxed at least 5%, but, no more than 20%.

That would balance the budget and pay off the debt.

And, put H&R Block et al out of business as the tax code would be simple, and most could prepare their own returns like "back in the day".

Seriously?
You understand that "deductions" include things like cost of labor, cost of material, and other costs of doing business, right?
I mean, you've actually filled out a tax form more complicated than the 1040EZ, right?

 

[Mathbud1]

Why should I buy from you and not your competitor?

If you don't need what I'm selling...or can't afford what I'm selling....you won't buy it from me or anyone else. It is simple.

Wasn't the question LL and you know it.

Your question isn't related to the thread subject.

You want to discuss marketing or pricing policy or customer service or location or best practices......none of it matters if there are no people with money in their pocket who want what you are selling.

Demand. It's what matters.

So who creates the demand?

Consumers with disposable income who are interested in the goods and services in question.

Where do the majority of people who have disposable income get that disposable income?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

It's a lie. Nobody makes 2% to 6% before taxes.

It was your scenario, you dumb moronic **** that I was responding to ......................

 

[bripat9643]

What differentiates the sellers LL?

No demand for insurance....or eggs....or cars......no sales. Simple.

(smile) You aren't very smart.

No businesses SELLING eggs, cars......insurance demand matters not.

10 businesses SELLING cars, insurance, eggs.........what differentiates them?

Sorry....no demand........no businesses.....no jobs. Period.

Demand is pretty much a given for any decent product. It doesn't matter how much demand there us though unless someone takes the initiative to sell that product or service. And the right company can create a demand for a product that nobody had ever thought to demand before.

Gee....that's such a simple way to put it. I wonder why I've passed over it and preferred to seek out a more complex understanding of the issue? Simple is best, right?

Because you're a moron and a tick on the ass of society. Reality means that government isn't required to "stimulate" demand. That means your services aren't required.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's obvious that you've never gone to college, 1% but you can still educate yourself to the point where you don't make an ass of yourself in discussions like this one. Thomas Sowell wrote a very good book on the basics of Economics that even someone like yourself could probably understand without too much difficulty. Pick up a copy. That way when you're posing as a millionaire on the internet, people won't laugh at you! http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?s=textbooks-trade-in&ie=UTF8&qid=1415082227&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas sowell economics

Sowell is a theorist. I'm an entrepreneur. He thinks about it, I do it.

Sowell is a well respected economist. You are someone who pretends to be a millionaire and have an MBA on an internet chat board.

 

[Mathbud1]

...I guess businesses need to beef up the border patrol and build a higher fence. All this time I thought the Federal Government was responsible for controlling the border and setting immigration policy. Please tell me I am wrong.

Of course you're wrong.

However, in a situation where business silently and tacitly stimulates Illegal Immigration by hiring and exploiting low-wages Illegal Alien labor, thereby being responsible, at least in part, for an irresistible motivation and stimulus for outsiders to try crossing into the United States, it greatly increases the volume and makes border control all the more difficult.

Before you dig the hole deeper, perhaps you should read these links.

U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
8 U.S. Code 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens LII Legal Information Institute

How Federal Law Regulates ForeignWorkers
Foreign Workers Post September 11th - News Publications=

Are you really and truly going to try to pretend that businesses do not hire Illegal Aliens by the hundreds of thousands and by the millions, in order to take advantage of far lower labor rates?

Really?

And you serve-up a law-citation or two, in support of that, and some commentary about the state of affairs immediately subsequent to 9-11?

Implying, of course, that businesses routinely comply with such laws, and that the post 9-11 state of affairs continued largely in the same vein, ever since the 9-11 timeframe, in an Illegal Immigration context?

Really?

You're a funny guy.

My plumber uses Illegals.

My roofer uses Illegals.

My general contractor uses illegals.

My driveway paving and resurfacing provider uses illegals.

My painter uses illegals.

My pool service (tough jobs only) uses illegals.

My neighbor's lawn care service uses illegals.

Five fast food joints within five minutes of my house use illegals.

Puh-leeeze!

And, the particular statute you cited, was passed by the present 113th Congress - only a year or two old.

How long have members of the latest Invasion Wave (12,000,000 to 20,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon United States soil) been coming here?

Since the 1986 Reagan Shamnesty was fulfilled, admitting a prior 3,000,000.

This most recent Invasion Wave began more than a quarter-century ago, long before that particular piece of legislation was passed.

A little like locking the barn door after the horses have already escaped.

Even IF such statute were being scrupulously observed by all sizes of companies and in all industries...

It didn't exist throughout the majority of the most recent Invasion Period, and, therefore, is nearly irrelevant, for our purposes here.

And, what existed prior to that time was oftentimes and rightfully viewed as being about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Businesses don't hire Illegal Aliens on a large scale - law or no law?

Yeah - right.

Your Honor - the Defense rests.

Why are you hiring companies that you know use illegal labor if you don't support the practice?

Why are you not reporting the illegal behavior that you claim here to be aware of?

Do you have any evidence other than your own anecdotal and unverified experience to prove that companies across the country are routinely and knowingly hiring illegal workers?

 

[Mathbud1]

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers and now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

The taxpayers are and legislators are making part time work more attractive to business owners with their over regulation of the market. WalMart's cost will be passed on to the consumer so you aren't helping them. And most aren't making minimum wage anyway.

Walmart is not going to out-price themselves. If Walmart raises their prices, I will go shopping at Target. Their CEO makes $11,000 an hour. They may have to cut that down to $10,000 an hour.

How many employees does Wal-Mart have?

 

[Kondor3]

...Why are you hiring companies that you know use illegal labor if you don't support the practice?...

Because the practice is so ubiquitous that it would take forever to find those who don't, and I haven't got that kind of time, for each and every sort of provider.

...Why are you not reporting the illegal behavior that you claim here to be aware of?...

Because it never does any lasting good, because measures are never put in place designed to halt future violations.

...Do you have any evidence other than your own anecdotal and unverified experience to prove that companies across the country are routinely and knowingly hiring illegal workers?

Nope, although it's likely I could dig some up on fairly short notice, from authoritative sources. But... do I really and truly need that, in order to serve-up commentary on such a glaringly obvious state of affairs, and to be perceived as credible, in that context? Methinks not.

 

[Mathbud1]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

$10 an hour is a reasonable goal if we have to have a Federal minimum wage. I think the states will do a better job setting the minimum wage than the Feds can. Do you really think there is anyone in New York City that works for the minimum wage?

As long as companies are allowed to pay less than what a person can get from "welfare" we are going to continue to see more people on welfare. And who can blame them? If you can get $15 an hour from welfare as opposed to $7.25 by working your ass off, which one would you choose? And, don't lie.

On Labor Day 2013 Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

If by working you can increase your chance of making more than $15/hr later, then working makes better long term sense. Unfortunately some people don't think long term.

 

[Warner Athey]

This a joke, right?

(With normal people, I wouldn't have to ask. But with liberal fanatics, it's all too possible they actually said that, and believe it.)

It is not only possible it is true. Now I am sure Hillary know it was a lie when she said it. The big question is why did she say it.
I think I know the answer. She was pandering to the ignorant. What she didn't think of was that normal people would also hear it.
That woman lost any credibility that she had which was not all that much in the first place. You just can't trust Democrats.

 

[Mathbud1]

...Why are you hiring companies that you know use illegal labor if you don't support the practice?...

Because the practice is so ubiquitous that it would take forever to find those who don't, and I haven't got that kind of time, for each and every sort of provider.

...Why are you not reporting the illegal behavior that you claim here to be aware of?...

Because it never does any lasting good, because measures are never put in place designed to halt future violations.

...Do you have any evidence other than your own anecdotal and unverified experience to prove that companies across the country are routinely and knowingly hiring illegal workers?

Nope, although it's likely I could dig some up on fairly short notice, from authoritative sources. But... do I really and truly need that, in order to serve-up commentary on such a glaringly obvious state of affairs, and to be perceived as credible, in that context? Methinks not.

Statements like, "the practice is so ubiquitous..." and "such a glaringly obvious state of affairs..." are not self-proving statements.

Think of it this way: saying, "the sky is blue" does not prove that the sky is blue any more than saying "the sky is green" proves that the sky is green.

Your statements about the obviousness and ubiquity of businesses hiring illegals could be of either variety of statement. They could be completely wrong about the reality or they could actually accurately portray it, but neither can be accepted as accurate by someone who does not share your experiences without some substantiating fact to back them up.

I don't share your experience. To me it is not glaringly obvious or obviously ubiquitous.

I would therefore ask that you substantiate your claims or I must personally discard them as untrustworthy.

On another note, if everyone accepts criminal behavior as the norm, can we be surprised if it becomes the norm. Not reporting a crime because everyone is doing it is tacitly accepting that it is ok for everyone to be doing it.

 

[Kondor3]

...Why are you hiring companies that you know use illegal labor if you don't support the practice?...

Because the practice is so ubiquitous that it would take forever to find those who don't, and I haven't got that kind of time, for each and every sort of provider.

...Why are you not reporting the illegal behavior that you claim here to be aware of?...

Because it never does any lasting good, because measures are never put in place designed to halt future violations.

...Do you have any evidence other than your own anecdotal and unverified experience to prove that companies across the country are routinely and knowingly hiring illegal workers?

Nope, although it's likely I could dig some up on fairly short notice, from authoritative sources. But... do I really and truly need that, in order to serve-up commentary on such a glaringly obvious state of affairs, and to be perceived as credible, in that context? Methinks not.

Statements like, "the practice is so ubiquitous..." and "such a glaringly obvious state of affairs..." are not self-proving statements...

Doesn't matter. I feel under no particular obligation to spend endless hours compiling data, to satisfy you.

...Think of it this way: saying, "the sky is blue" does not prove that the sky is blue any more than saying "the sky is green" proves that the sky is green...

No. Really? Golly-gosh gee-whiz... who'da thunk it?... ya lernz sumfin' new effrey day!

...Your statements about the obviousness and ubiquity of businesses hiring illegals could be of either variety of statement...

Indeed.

But most folks who are not taking the side of Illegal Aliens, are perfectly willing accept as a "given" (solid assumption, backed by observation, real life experiences, and various exposures to reliable data over time) that that is the case.

Close enough for gubmint work.

...They could be completely wrong about the reality or they could actually accurately portray it, but neither can be accepted as accurate by someone who does not share your experiences without some substantiating fact to back them up...

See remark, immediately above.

...I don't share your experience. To me it is not glaringly obvious or obviously ubiquitous...

That's nice.

...I would therefore ask that you substantiate your claims or I must personally discard them as untrustworthy.

You go right ahead and feel free to discard them as untrustworthy... doesn't faze me in the slightest at the moment.

The vast, widespread tangle of small-to-medium -sized businesses, nationwide, which hire Illegal Aliens on a regular basis, stands sufficient surety for the observation.

...On another note, if everyone accepts criminal behavior as the norm, can we be surprised if it becomes the norm. Not reporting a crime because everyone is doing it is tacitly accepting that it is ok for everyone to be doing it.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... thank you for the Civics lesson... but decades of government intransigence on the subject have 'numbed' or 'deadened' many, who no longer bother to report or protest.

 

[Mathbud1]

...Why are you hiring companies that you know use illegal labor if you don't support the practice?...

Because the practice is so ubiquitous that it would take forever to find those who don't, and I haven't got that kind of time, for each and every sort of provider.

...Why are you not reporting the illegal behavior that you claim here to be aware of?...

Because it never does any lasting good, because measures are never put in place designed to halt future violations.

...Do you have any evidence other than your own anecdotal and unverified experience to prove that companies across the country are routinely and knowingly hiring illegal workers?

Nope, although it's likely I could dig some up on fairly short notice, from authoritative sources. But... do I really and truly need that, in order to serve-up commentary on such a glaringly obvious state of affairs, and to be perceived as credible, in that context? Methinks not.

Statements like, "the practice is so ubiquitous..." and "such a glaringly obvious state of affairs..." are not self-proving statements...

Doesn't matter. I feel under no particular obligation to spend endless hours compiling data, to satisfy you.

...Think of it this way: saying, "the sky is blue" does not prove that the sky is blue any more than saying "the sky is green" proves that the sky is green...

No. Really? Golly-gosh gee-whiz... who'da thunk it?... ya lernz sumfin' new effrey day!

...Your statements about the obviousness and ubiquity of businesses hiring illegals could be of either variety of statement...

Indeed.

But most folks who are not taking the side of Illegal Aliens, are perfectly willing accept as a "given" (solid assumption, backed by observation, real life experiences, and various exposures to reliable data over time) that that is the case.

Close enough for gubmint work.

...They could be completely wrong about the reality or they could actually accurately portray it, but neither can be accepted as accurate by someone who does not share your experiences without some substantiating fact to back them up...

See remark, immediately above.

...I don't share your experience. To me it is not glaringly obvious or obviously ubiquitous...

That's nice.

...I would therefore ask that you substantiate your claims or I must personally discard them as untrustworthy.

You go right ahead and feel free to discard them as untrustworthy... doesn't faze me in the slightest at the moment.

The vast, widespread tangle of small-to-medium -sized businesses, nationwide, which hire Illegal Aliens on a regular basis, stands sufficient surety for the observation.

...On another note, if everyone accepts criminal behavior as the norm, can we be surprised if it becomes the norm. Not reporting a crime because everyone is doing it is tacitly accepting that it is ok for everyone to be doing it.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... thank you for the Civics lesson... but decades of government intransigence on the subject have 'numbed' or 'deadened' many, who no longer bother to report or protest.

You go right ahead and feel free to discard them as untrustworthy...

Good day then, sir.

 

[Listening]

Wonder if HIllary is watching tonight.

She's toast.

If the GOP lets her get the upper hand...they are fools. They should use this to set a clear agenda and grind her ass into little pieces.

 

[OnePercenter]

The middle class can't spend a dime without a job. So what you're saying is that jobs make jobs possible. Circular logic.

Spending makes jobs possible.

You can't spend a dime without a job, so once again what you've said is that jobs make jobs possible.

The main Dim economic theory is an example circular logic.

I stated 'Spending makes jobs possible.' Aren't subsidies spending?

 

[OnePercenter]

A tax deduction is not aid.
You don't know what you're talking about.

A deduction reducing your tax liability ISN'T financial aid?

 

[Antares]

A tax deduction is not aid.
You don't know what you're talking about.

A deduction reducing your tax liability ISN'T financial aid?

Who does the money belong to ?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[OnePercenter]

It's a lie. Nobody makes 2% to 6% before taxes.

It was your scenario, you dumb moronic **** that I was responding to ......................

I was quoting your post.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sowell is a well respected economist. You are someone who pretends to be a millionaire and have an MBA on an internet chat board.

Sowell is a hack, a 1%er with a book to sell.