States should sue republicanist-businesses leaving the state for lower taxes

[Happy Fun Ball]

And just what is a "republicanist" anyway?

[Doc Savage]

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. 

[txradioguy]

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?

 

[Gina]

BANTHEGOP is an idiot.  I can't believe he posted that stupid idea.

[Karin]

Where the hell does this asshole think he's living?  

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.  

[Jasonw560]

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.

[DumbAss Tanker]

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. 

[Karin]

'Idle hobbies where the invested cash gets blown on random whims.'

That sounds exactly like Obama's Stimulus/Porkulus program.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It kinda does, now that you mention it.

[Jasonw560]

I thought that was his campaign slogan

[obumazombie]

That sounds exactly like Obama's Stimulus/Porkulus program.

Crapulus
Occupoopulus.

[Airwolf]

Where the hell does this asshole think he's living?  
 

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

[Ban the GOP]

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.

[Freeper]

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.

[Mike220]

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...

[Jasonw560]

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.

[NHSparky]

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?

[DumbAss Tanker]

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.

[Airwolf]

I see the one hit wonder showed up and has yet to support anything he said.

[Jasonw560]

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.

[98ZJUSMC]

.

What's next genius?  Have the state sue private citizens that move to red states for jobs?

 

If they could....

[98ZJUSMC]

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.

[98ZJUSMC]

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. 

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 t......huh?

That's what happens in an indoctrination facility.

[miskie]

This is why primitives believe in the VAT -

The federal government will tax everyone for everything, then distribute those revenues as they see fit.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.