The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on July 10, 2012, 08:08:41 PM
-
BanTheGOP (786 posts)
States should sue republicanist-businesses leaving the state for lower taxes
Due to the recession 100% caused through republican-induced policies, many states have taken to enacting some much-needed taxation on rich business owners so they can redistribute funds to desperately-needed programs and services. Unfortunately, these businesses don't have ANY interest in their duty to ensure their workers' jobs as well as pride in their community, by leaving to go to red states who are criminally lax in their taxation policies. For instance, in California, 10 businesses a week leave state, taking their riches and their favorite workers and leaving everyone else to suffer in the unemployment line.
This problem encompasses far more than just moving: Businesses use relocation to get rid of minority workers before they can be promoted; they utilize a whole bunch of loopholes hidden in the codes for moving, and even are able to defer their tax payments past the normal quarterly reporting/payment periods! Couple it with states like Texas, using crony GOP criminal capitalists giving incentives to people to move to states without taxes (their minorities are SUFFERING GREATLY), also giving them more clout in screwing the US Government which hurts the losing states from any residual programs that come from population amount.
What I propose is that a business be required to pay an exit tax commensurate with the damage they inflict. For instance, by taking away workers they would also have to pay an extra fee, and if they have to lay off people, they would pay more in addition to unemployment. These fees are to be given to the principle business owner, so if he leaves state, then the fees are still due.
The bottom line is that we can NOT afford to let these business criminals leave without paying a penalty for the damage they inflict by lowering our tax base, essentially taking their ball and going home leaving us in the lurch. These republican bastards need to be put on notice that such conduct will no longer go unpunished.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002928392
You want to steal their money and they are the criminals? :mental:
If you bothered to think for a second, you would realize that you just admitted that when states raise taxes they lose businesses, so how in the world will higher taxes create jobs? People don't go into business in order to pay for your freebies, they go into business to provide goods or services and make a profit while doing so.
-
Conservatives look at reality, assess it, and deal with it.
Liberals look at reality and retreat into the shell of "Should be."
No matter how much you bang your head against the wall of "how things should be," Ban, reality is still real and "should be" is still a fantasy. Unless you have the ability to honestly assess reality, you cannot modify it.
-
DUmmies truly think that businesses should exist only to serve the public good, their employees, and the governing taxing bodies. That is why so many advocate the government taking over businesses and giving control to the workers and leaving the legitimate owners out in the cold.
It has worked so well for GM, so far. :whatever:
-
I suggest we return the favor and seize the bank accounts of the Kennedys and Kerrys and Schumers and Pelosi if this happenes.
-
So I have to wonder how the DUmmies rationalize Stockton, San Jose and now Scranton.
A little further down the road how will they spin the evacuation from France.
They want to tax everything and then can't understand why a business would bail to another state, so what is their inevitable answer...another tax.
DUmmies just do not understand what it is that creates a business, or rather they lament the fact that they cannot get rich off of the back of a business so they try to relieve (steal from) that company that which they do not deserve through their own sweat equity.
edit: I just noticed that BTG post has gone 39 minutes without a reply, maybe their is hope...no that can't be it, they don't learn from their mistakes evar.
-
For instance, in California, 10 businesses a week leave state, taking their riches and their favorite workers and leaving everyone else to suffer in the unemployment line.
Ban--dipshit--ye of the one post and run away ri-tard...you just invalidated your own argument with that one sentence I quoted.
Since WHEN has CA been conservative? WHY would someone want to leave a liberal haven like California? Or, could it possibly be it's DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL policies which drive out companies?
Do you realize just how much it costs ANY company to relocate, even within state?
A line I read in the OC Register a while back when times were good summed it up pretty well--lose 10,000 day laborers and nobody will care. Lose one dot-com millionaire, and it's going to HURT. Well, you and your policies are driving those folks out of CA, NY, NJ, MD, etc., in droves.
Sucks to be you.
-
It has worked so well for GM, so far. :whatever:
I just saw a "news" story that GM's sales were up 17% last quarter. Mentioned way down in the story was that the govt. was the buyer.
Meanwhile, their stock is down to $20 from $32 where the taxpayer bought it.
-
like Texas, using crony GOP criminal capitalists giving incentives to people to move to states without taxes (their minorities are SUFFERING GREATLY)
We have, 35 miles from me, on the border of Texas, the city with the most people per capita on welfarein the country. 40%. Now, it's not from businesses moving to places without taxes. In fact, our city and county leaders are doing what they can to bring businesses in, and doing a great job at it.
These people are on welfare because of the policies of YOUR side. Decades of being told by racist organizations like LULAC and La Raza Unida, "don't worry, the government's here to take care of you."
Many of then get healthcare, food, housing, all free (to them, but not to us who pay taxes). We have people abusing the system, and a government looking the other way. They may live in a house as big as many of our living rooms, but because they live under the poverty level (and aren't taxed, thanks to a progressive tax system), they sure as hell have their iPhones, Coach purses, Cadillacs, and gold jewelry. And LOTS of kids. In fact, the more kids they have, the more assistance they get. They have no incentive to work. Suffering? Hardly.
-
If the state is going to charge out the nose for taxes, then the businesses have every right to leave the state. It happens all the time. BantheGOP is just trying to be a jackass.
-
A line I read in the OC Register a while back when times were good summed it up pretty well--lose 10,000 day laborers and nobody will care. Lose one dot-com millionaire, and it's going to HURT. Well, you and your policies are driving those folks out of CA, NY, NJ, MD, etc., in droves.
Sucks to be you.
But California is making it so much easier for the illegals to live there.
I just saw a "news" story that GM's sales were up 17% last quarter. Mentioned way down in the story was that the govt. was the buyer.
Meanwhile, their stock is down to $20 from $32 where the taxpayer bought it.
I've also seen where most of their increased production has been overseas.
-
BanTheGOP
... by leaving to go to red states who are criminally lax in their taxation policies.
Got that? States whose tax rates are too low are "criminal."
What I propose is...
Nobody with more than a single brain cell *cares* what you propose. Got it?
..... freaking idiot......... :loser:
.
-
I am expecting Disneyland to leave California at some point.
-
I interrupt this thread to pay tribute to Ban the GOP who signed up here, started a thread, and then bravely turned his tail and fled.
[youtube=425,350]tIJzsF8mn9I[/youtube]
He's one to talk about businesses fleeing the horrors of liberalism. Ban the GOP wasn't even brave enough to put his ideals to debate.
-
And to add to the thread,It seems another Democratically controlled city is lookung at loosing more businesses. I wonder where OmahaSteve is on this since its His employer involved with this and they may have to cut back on emplyees.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48142398/ns/local_news-omaha_ne/
Several area businesses say they may have no other choice but to move because of rising sewer fees in Omaha.
The business that comprise SaveOmahaJobs.org said increased sewer fees they're paying as part of a federally mandated overhaul have them at a breaking point.
The group claims 4,000 jobs are directly at stake.
The city estimates the overhaul will cost $2 billion. The 19 largest water users in Omaha -- most of which are members of the business group -- have to collectively pay about $100 million of that.
-
The reason BanTheGop was here made a thread and left is because he knows he is full of shit.
-
Here in PDRoK (Peoples Democratic Republic of Kalifornia) n my town we had the largest mortgage insurance company in the world based here. This was a pretty much ZERO ecological business that they love here. Contributed huge amounts of out of state revenues and taxes to city, county, and state. The owner of the company told me that he went to the so called leaders of the city, county, and state and told them he needed some tax and regulation relief from the governments or he would have to move to Florida. To a person they told him "Dear Sir, kindly go **** yourself. We don't need you or your company." The first year savings after the move was $32 million. He was asking for a fraction of that in relief. So off the company went taking all their high earners and out of state revenues with them. The company was able to increase their business and hire lots of Floridians.
The response from the so called leaders of the city, county, and state was that they were evil and traitors for leaving the area. Big-gov totalitarians just don't get it. The fact is that they are completely inflexible and will not tolerate anything but complete surrender to consider negotiations fair.
-
More evidence that moonbats believe all earnings belong to the state - anything you get to keep is by their good graces alone.
-
We Still have a group of folks around here that bristle at the idea of offering interested companies tax abatements. They just can't seem to understand 20% of something is always greater than 100% of nothing.
-
We Still have a group of folks around here that bristle at the idea of offering interested companies tax abatements. They just can't seem to understand 20% of something is always greater than 100% of nothing.
Yep. People complained here when governor Quinn backed down and gave some companies tax breaks to stay in Illinois after he jacked up taxes by 66% on everyone else.
-
Why are so many of you gringos inhabiting Aztlan ?
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002928392
You want to steal their money and they are the criminals? :mental:
If you bothered to think for a second, you would realize that you just admitted that when states raise taxes they lose businesses, so how in the world will higher taxes create jobs? People don't go into business in order to pay for your freebies, they go into business to provide goods or services and make a profit while doing so.
Somebody's mole is trying for DOTY. Whoever BTG is, I want you to know that I will not vote for a mole for DOTY.
-
BanTheGOP (786 posts)
States should sue republicanist-businesses leaving the state for lower taxes
Due to the recession 100% caused through republican-induced policies,
Well, that was quick. 1 sentence and the DUllard zooms off the rails. Please continue.
many states have taken to enacting some much-needed taxation on rich business owners so they can redistribute funds to desperately-needed programs and services.
They just cannot not use that term. I honestly think their pathetic little Johnsons get stiff when they type it. Jeez.
Unfortunately, these businesses don't have ANY interest in their duty to ensure their workers' jobs as well as pride in their community, by leaving to go to red states who are criminally lax in their taxation policies.
A business is in business to turn a profit and continue to employ people, DUllard. That is in the interest of the community you jackstick.
...and those would be the red states that have lower unemployment and still dropping, in spite of, President Training Wheels and his magic bag of beans, right? OK, just checkin'. Please, go on....
For instance, in California, 10 businesses a week leave state, taking their riches and their favorite workers and leaving everyone else to suffer in the unemployment line.
And that tells you..........?
This problem encompasses far more than just moving: Businesses use relocation to get rid of minority workers before they can be promoted; they utilize a whole bunch of loopholes hidden in the codes for moving, and even are able to defer their tax payments past the normal quarterly reporting/payment periods! Couple it with states like Texas, using crony GOP criminal capitalists giving incentives to people to move to states without taxes (their minorities are SUFFERING GREATLY), also giving them more clout in screwing the US Government which hurts the losing states from any residual programs that come from population amount.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Residual programs that come from....... population amount?!?!?!?
What in the :censored: are you talking about?
What I propose is that a business be required to pay an exit tax commensurate with the damage they inflict. For instance, by taking away workers they would also have to pay an extra fee, and if they have to lay off people, they would pay more in addition to unemployment. These fees are to be given to the principle business owner, so if he leaves state, then the fees are still due.
Businesses have to pay exit fees to.....themselves? ......and it's principal, numbnuts. So they pay a fee to themselves (determined by?) and keep it and then they can invest it? Hey thanks, DUllard.
The bottom line is that we can NOT afford to let these business criminals leave without paying a penalty for the damage they inflict by lowering our tax base, essentially taking their ball and going home leaving us in the lurch. These republican bastards need to be put on notice that such conduct will no longer go unpunished.
But, they're evil. You hate them. Leaving would make you happy, no? Companies are under no contractual obligation to do business where they are...... well, unless you're Boeing, right? Yeah, go ahead and implement that Mr. Himmler. :mental:
I should know the answer to this, but where do these drooling infants come up with this :censored:
-
The response from the so called leaders of the city, county, and state was that they were evil and traitors for leaving the area. Big-gov totalitarians just don't get it. The fact is that they are completely inflexible and will not tolerate anything but complete surrender to consider negotiations fair
Like the petulant adolescents that they are. :cheersmate:
-
Yep. People complained here when governor Quinn backed down and gave some companies tax breaks to stay in Illinois after he jacked up taxes by 66% on everyone else.
Quinn has got to go.
I know, I know.....
Good luck with that. This state is truly :censored:.
-
You would think that good little socialists would WANT companies to leave. A socialist govt provides for everything for the people, jobs included.
-
And just what is a "republicanist" anyway?
-
The ape that wrote this is an idiot. A business is not in the business to provide jobs, it is in the business to make money. The benefit of making money is employment. If California decides that companies are going to be taxed more or regulated more than the profit is worth, guess what.
Here is a hint. IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE!!!! Your state legislature is pricing business out of the state.
-
BanTheGOP
... by leaving to go to red states who are criminally lax in their taxation policies.
So tell me Mr. "lurking is for pansies"...how exactly is it "criminally lax" in a state that doesn't even HAVE a state income tax?
You do realize that in 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010 ALL OF THEM have had their unemployment rates drop?
And you wonder why corporations are leaving screwed up blue states like California.
What's next genius? Have the state sue private citizens that move to red states for jobs?
:whatever:
-
BANTHEGOP is an idiot. I can't believe he posted that stupid idea. :lmao:
-
Where the hell does this asshole think he's living? :mental:
essentially taking their ball and going home leaving us in the lurch.
That's exactly what they're doing, and they're under no obligation to provide, as another poster said, your freebies. What a childish little rant.
Only one reply, which made little sense, and 5 recs.
Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)
Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:53 PM
freshwest (14,864 posts)
1. Good points. They need to make whole the state for all the waivers they had.
Many of them act like sports teams, extorting cities to pay their bills on the tax payer's dime, then scream private enterprise when it comes time to give back. And no, their much ballyhooed gifts are just more public relations. While communities do without, they live it up and push up the tax rates on millions who have no interest and could even afford to join in their gamble.
Another day at CommunistUnderground.
-
Why are so many of you gringos inhabiting Aztlan ?
We took a page out of the Pilgrims' playbook. We offered them free stuff. They didn't take it. So we sat it on the corner, put a price on it, and it was gone in 10 minutes.
-
BanTheGOP apparently thinks businesses are run like the DUmmies run their own sad little pointless lives. Nobody relocates a business to avoid promoting minorities, that's just stupid. Even with the darkest of motives, there would be a hundred easier and less costly ways to achieve that end, but that overlooks the fact that business is always about the bottom line, not personal feelings good or bad, from altruism to bigotry. That's why it's called 'Business' and not 'Idle hobbies where the invested cash gets blown on random whims.'
Hey BTGOP - there is this thing called 'Freedom of movement' in Constitutional law that would put the kibosh on your extortionate little plan.
-
'Idle hobbies where the invested cash gets blown on random whims.'
That sounds exactly like Obama's Stimulus/Porkulus program.
-
It kinda does, now that you mention it.
-
I thought that was his campaign slogan
-
That sounds exactly like Obama's Stimulus/Porkulus program.
Crapulus
Occupoopulus.
-
Where the hell does this asshole think he's living? :mental:
That's exactly what they're doing, and they're under no obligation to provide, as another poster said, your freebies. What a childish little rant.
Only one reply, which made little sense, and 5 recs.
Another day at CommunistUnderground.
I think you hit on something. We should no longer call DU DemocraticUnderground,we should call it Communist Underground or CommieU
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
How about we start off by sharing your money?
Where in the hell do you people get the idea that money that belongs to other people should be taken at will by a tyrannical government?
And why is it you never ever talk about what you need to do to better yourself, you just sit there and demand that things be given to you? It's time to grow up and go out and be responsible for yourself.
-
How about we start off by sharing your money?
Where in the hell do you people get the idea that money that belongs to other people should be taken at will by a tyrannical government?
And why is it you never ever talk about what you need to do to better yourself, you just sit there and demand that things be given to you? It's time to grow up and go out and be responsible for yourself.
Something tells me Ban's money is our money...
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Gee, I see all of those responses as making sense.
Define "share it properly". It sounds, after deciphering it (luckily for you, I speak a smidgen of idiot) you mean "From each accoring to his ability, to each according to his needs".
In the real world, sharing it properly is paying the employees enough for their basic needs and rewarding them for hard work and being productive. Start off low wage, then, when (and if) you produce better than expected, you get a raise. The wages paid then go to the markets and people buy goods and services and others get to work, produce, and do the same. It's cyclical. That's the free market system.
Do you understand how business works?
Let me nutshell it for you.
If you tax the bejeebus out of a business they have less money to spend.
They have to decide where to cut the biggest costs.
Since (usually) the biggest expense is payroll, guess what happens? That's right...unemployment goes up.
Now, if you tax the people (CEO, COO, CBO, etc.) who run the "republicanist" businesses, guess what? They don't have any incentive to work. If the CEO and the janitor are making the same, why would anyone want to be CEO? No one willing to run these businesses, they fold. (Oversimplifying, but that's the gist of it)
Oh, yeah, and taxing corps. and those who run them means less money to truly help those in need through charities (since it has been documented that Republicans give more to charity), and scholarships many need to get throuh school, and other entities that help those truly less forunate. Those things will gradually disappear.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Okay, genius--what about people who have gained their wealth through nobody's efforts but their own?
And "sharing" it is called paying your employees. I am highly trained, work hard, but I have a simply philosophy. Every two weeks, the company and I are all square. If I don't like my compensation, I'm free to shop my talents elsewhere. Likewise, if my employer can't make a profit, they have a choice to either move elsewhere, cut employees at their locale, or go out of business entirely.
Which is "fair" in your estimation?
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Au contraire, that labor was of no value until bargained for and paid off by a person or organization with a plan, and that same agency is free to move on to more receptive environments as the situation - to include the tax and regulatory environment - dictates. The labor returns to being of no value since nobody is mobilizing it to an economic end, and the increased value of the business entity is merely the earned and vested return on their end of the original deal with the heretofore-valueless labor, the fruits of which have benefitted the local or regional jurisdiction to the full extent to which it is entitled in real time, not in futurity or perpetuity. And a business enterprise very much has that freedom of movement, even the Left's beloved but remarkably-ignorant-of-the-law "Constitutional scholar" would know that one.
The very idea (And a bad idea it is) actually harks back to the repressive regimes of the Warsaw Pact countries, where a citizen planning to flee to the West was considered to have committed a crime on the basis of the State having invested in educating and caring for them, and so it was a criminal act to take their training and expertise to another, freer land since that deprived the Mother State of the fruits of its investment. Given that California has done almost everything it can to stifle business rather than foster it, it could be argued that the analogy breaks down a bit there, but I'm sure the logic of East Germany and her fellow Pact members would appeal to America's totalitarian-minded Socialists. Their Draconian policies in this regard, incidentally, failed utterly to produce an economic outcome that kept pace with their free Western counterparts in the then-EEC/ECM or NATO, where mobility of location for business was never challenged.
-
I see the one hit wonder showed up and has yet to support anything he said.
-
BanTheGOP
Lurking's for pansies... time to get some real discussion going
« on: May 20, 2012, 08:59:43 pm »
Quote
And....yet....you post this title....are gone for a month and a half......then come back and post on something totally different you obviously read...:???:
Pansy.
-
.
What's next genius? Have the state sue private citizens that move to red states for jobs?
:whatever:
If they could.... :stoner:
-
I think you hit on something. We should no longer call DU DemocraticUnderground,we should call it Communist Underground or CommieU
It would be more accurate.
-
It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
DUllard has no clue that the State that does that penalizes ........itself. :thatsright:
Witness.....KKKalifurnia.
Here's a clue, retard: A States' ability to provide Social Protection is directly proportional to a vigorous free markets' ability to support it. Once the socialist demand for more taxpayer-funded freebies exceeds the ability of the free market to support such, you are on a ever decreasing spiral downward and all the skittle-farting unicorns in the world won't stop it.
Professor Birkenstock forgot to mention any of this, I suppose?
No, sh :censored: t......huh?
That's what happens in an indoctrination facility.
-
This is why primitives believe in the VAT -
The federal government will tax everyone for everything, then distribute those revenues as they see fit.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Suppose I just say, "**** you" and move any way?
Gonna start sending armed agents of the state to force people to do what you demand?
Let's take the Pepsi challenge.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
In the first place, businesses PURCHASE the "productive labor" of the workers. It's called WAGES.
Second, sharing is VOLUNTARY and subjected to the whim of the EARNER, not mandated by a government bureaucrat and subjected to the whim of politics.
Third, it's totally "fair" for a business to move to wherever the hell they want to. Despite the best efforts of liberals, it's still a (somewhat) free country, and if a business wants to move to a state to better their bottom line, so be it.
Come to think of it, just why do you think businesses move offshore? Could it be the US now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and are regulated past the point of ridiculous?
Fourth, life ain't fair. Get over it or wear a helmet.
Maybe governments should rethink their citizens' wants and adjust it to what is practical and necessary, and stop playing Santa Claus. If the citizens' think they "deserve" more freebies, let THEM move to a state that provides them.
-
In the first place, businesses PURCHASE the "productive labor" of the workers. It's called WAGES.
Second, sharing is VOLUNTARY and subjected to the whim of the EARNER, not mandated by a government bureaucrat and subjected to the whim of politics.
Third, it's totally "fair" for a business to move to wherever the hell they want to. Despite the best efforts of liberals, it's still a (somewhat) free country, and if a business wants to move to a state to better their bottom line, so be it.
Come to think of it, just why do you think businesses move offshore? Could it be the US now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and are regulated past the point of ridiculous?
Fourth, life ain't fair. Get over it or wear a helmet.
Maybe governments should rethink their citizens' wants and adjust it to what is practical and necessary, and stop playing Santa Claus. If the citizens' think they "deserve" more freebies, let THEM move to a state that provides them.
I would also add that since the law should not discriminate based on social status BtG is opening a can of worms he's not prepared to swallow.
His principle is: government provides X, Y and Z ergo businesses are obligated to provide taxes on a return on that investment.
1) the investors provided X, Y and Z and the business owes them first and directly, not in some abstraction.
2) when a business provides training and bonuses to it employees BtG's standard would imply those employees are obligated to serve their employer.
If a business trains an employee to drive a Class A vehicle and the employee is fired for cause can the employer sue the employee for the cost of the licensing?
BtG says, "Yes."
Congratulations, BtG you just brought back indentured servitude and apprenticeships where the master is truly the master.
-
If they could.... :stoner:
Kalifornia had to be slapped down in court several years back for trying to tax out of state military retired pay for anyone who had ever been stationed in Kalifornia. When I was stationed there, they kept demanding I file state income tax forms even though I never established residency there. Those SOB's would pull your mom's teeth to get the gold.
-
If they could.... :stoner:
At least one state does:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_exit_tax_has_real_estate_at.html
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
I pretty sure business owners can determine what they need to do in order to be profitable and effective. There's any number of reasons a business might choose to relocate, not just because of taxes. If a state wants their citizens to prosper, then penalizing businesses isn't the way. Don't give me this "it's not fair" baloney. States compete against each other all the time for business, tourists dollars, etc...
.
-
Ban, also, consider that states don't have the right to sue anyone for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.
Read that word again, Ban...RIGHT.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Who are you--or the state--to allow or not allow our freedom of movement across state lines? The states that have higher tax rates are penalizing themselves. And the people who have "enriched themeselves" are the ones who put down the capital investment, and then they paid wages for labor--fair trade, so THAT'S zeroed out. Did they borrrow money from their workers? Are those workers creditors? Even creditors can't stop people and businesses from moving, and creditors ARE actually owed money by your putative business owners. The business owners who move owe NOTHING to either their workers who once worked for them or to the state that taxes them except whatever they legally owe in each fiscal year, and they don't have to "justify" their personal decisions to the state to move with their OWN business that belong to them. And in terms of who profits off whom, it's exactly the reverse, you damned fascist. The state--or the high tax ones you like--is a leech on the back of business, with high taxes and fees, fees, endless, endless fees.
-
Fourth, life ain't fair. Get over it or wear a helmet.
That's excellent! May I use that? You get credit here, of course.
-
Ban, also, consider that states don't have the right to sue anyone for exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.
Read that word again, Ban...RIGHT.
He and his kind want to stop it from being a right, any way they can. They openly say so. And, unfortunately, they find ways to do so often enough without amending the Constitution.
-
He and his kind want to stop it from being a right, any way they can. They openly say so. And, unfortunately, they find ways to do so often enough without amending the Constitution.
Look no further than Boeing wanting to open that plant in South Carolina, and the NLRB sued.
-
It's not fair that a state would be penalized because
Sounds so whiney and babyish.
If Ban would come back, (which he won't), and answer, (which he won't), I'd ask him what on earth he thinks businesses exist for.
-
What he wants is where communism always ends up.
(http://www.germany.info/contentblob/2158448/Galeriebild_gross/331323/Timeline_Stacheldraht_Brandenburger_Tor_B.jpg)
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Where do you get this "our workers" bullshit from? People don't belong to a state, except in the minds of totalitarian statists like yourself.
People can move whenever and wherever the MOTHER**** they want to - that is the essence of FREEDOM, you totalitarian ****nut. That labor you think is owned by the state? It can move, too.
It's called the Tiebout Hypothesis. Voting with one's feet. Look it up. California WILL turn into Michigan for ONE simple reason: it insists that
hundreds of thousands of worthless paper-pushing choads deserve pensions for life for reshelving library books.
-
All I can think is that this person is either a very bad mole or learned law when 0bama was a guest marxist instructor.
Cindie
-
That's excellent! May I use that? You get credit here, of course.
Be my guest. :cheersmate:
-
Be my guest. :cheersmate:
Conrad Hilton theme song...
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ses8Z2v0-m4
[/youtube]
edit for content.
-
Conrad Hilton theme song...
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ses8Z2v0-m4
[/youtube]
edit for content.
Paris Hilton on a date. :lmao:
-
Paris, the perfect example of why a lineage goes from sandals to sandals in 3 generations.
-
At least one state does:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_exit_tax_has_real_estate_at.html
Boy, that thing's a mess. They can't even agree that it even exists.
Typical (D) legislation. :mental:
-
Where do you get this "our workers" bullshit from? People don't belong to a state,
Which explains why we get it and they don't.
-
For instance, in California, 10 businesses a week leave state
500 per year? I'm not sure where the DUmpmonkey came up with that figure, but it's gotta be a vast underestimate.
Far more than 500 businesses a year disappear from the Peoples' Republic of California.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense. Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place. Making money is not like freedom of movement; you have to share it properly in order to be effective. It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
Just...wow.
If you got everything you wanted you would starve to death within 12 hours.
-
I don't see any of your responses that make sense.
Of course you don't. :whatever:
Only by taxing those who have enriched themselves throught he productive labor of our workers would justify allowing them to move in the first place.
You just made Marx and Lenin smile.
Making money is not like freedom of movement;
The hell it's not. IF that stupidity you uttered were true then people owuldn't be allowed to find better paying jobs...move from one company to another or strike out on their own and start their own business.
Under your misguided "logic" people would be locked into one job and one job only for their entire life...kind like they used to do in Russia.
you have to share it properly in order to be effective.
Says who?
It's not fair that a state would be penalized because they want their citizens to have a minimum level of protection.
It's not fair that a state refuses to manage it's own checkbook and continues to spend like a drunken sailor and make the hard working citizens of that state pay for the states excess.
-
It's not fair that a state refuses to manage it's own checkbook and continues to spend like a drunken sailor and make the hard working citizens of that state pay for the states excess.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5aeHF2ay5M[/youtube]