View Full Version : CEO threatens workers jobs if Obama is reelected
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 02:12 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/09/978211/david-siegel-fire-employees/
Basically CEO is saying Obama will increase taxes and he will have to layoff employees because of tax increases. Romney is also encouraging executives to make their concerns about potential layoffs clear to their workers.
If you thought that your boss would fire you if Obama got elected would that make you more or less likely to vote for him?
longhornfan1234
10-20-2012, 02:16 PM
I don't read lib bias sites.
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 02:18 PM
I don't read lib bias sites.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-10/why-david-siegel-told-his-employees-to-vote-for-romney
There u go
longhornfan1234
10-20-2012, 02:23 PM
Nm.
Rasheed1
10-20-2012, 02:32 PM
republicans and their rich friends are getting out of control...
The reason there are unions is because of situations like this. Republicans talk a big game about how much they love freedom and all this other happy horsesh*t...
telling people how to vote under the threat of losing job is about as anti-freedom, anti-american as it gets... but these clowns talk about saving america? lol
Truth is that these guys love only power and their own capacity to fulfill their greedy little fantasies of making the world their own little playground
the hypocrisy is astounding
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 02:40 PM
republicans and their rich friends are getting out of control...
The reason there are unions is because of situations like this. Republicans talk a big game about how much they love freedom and all this other happy horsesh*t...
telling people how to vote under the threat of losing job is about as anti-freedom, anti-american as it gets... but these clowns talk about saving america? lol
Truth is that these guys love only power and their own capacity to fulfill their greedy little fantasies of making the world their own little playground
the hypocrisy is astounding
I have a hard time believing successful businessmen would layoff employees just because their marginal tax rates increased slightly. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They know deep down layoff workers for no real economic reason is going to hurt them more than small tax increases
But ya it's disgusting how these guys treat their non-skilled labour. Why it's so importent to get diserable skills, so that you won't be raped by your bosses.
I think this is was posted when it came out over a week ago, but this scumbag is what is wrong with America. He admits that he won't take a financial hit, but will take it out on his workers instead.
Rasheed1
10-20-2012, 03:27 PM
I have a hard time believing successful businessmen would layoff employees just because their marginal tax rates increased slightly. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They know deep down layoff workers for no real economic reason is going to hurt them more than small tax increases
But ya it's disgusting how these guys treat their non-skilled labour. Why it's so importent to get diserable skills, so that you won't be raped by your bosses.
I hear you
To be fair though, Im gonna assume that this is a small group of politically active millionaires who take this route and that this isnt normal behavior.
At least I would hope..
the guy has one of the biggest houses in america, with 3 swimming pools, and he's afraid of not being able to pay his bills if obama is elected. :oldlol:
fking republicans...
SpecialQue
10-20-2012, 03:36 PM
The memo:
http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected
Money quote:
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
:milton
The memo:
http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected
Money quote:
:milton
He's basically saying his workers are unproductive. I would not want to work for this prick. I'm guessing he will fire a bunch of employees, they will go on welfare, and then he will be like: "Why don't these poor people stop being lazy and get a job?"
oh the horror
10-20-2012, 03:46 PM
But ya it's disgusting how these guys treat their non-skilled labour. Why it's so importent to get diserable skills, so that you won't be raped by your bosses.
You aint lying.
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 03:47 PM
He's basically saying his workers are unproductive. I would not want to work for this prick. I'm guessing he will fire a bunch of employees, they will go on welfare, and then he will be like: "Why don't these poor people stop being lazy and get a job?"
Fox news will blame obama for it too.
Fox news will blame obama for it too.
Well of course.
KevinNYC
10-20-2012, 05:36 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/09/978211/david-siegel-fire-employees/
Basically CEO is saying Obama will increase taxes and he will have to layoff employees because of tax increases. Romney is also encouraging executives to make their concerns about potential layoffs clear to their workers.
If you thought that your boss would fire you if Obama got elected would that make you more or less likely to vote for him?
There's audio of Romney supporting this idea from back in June (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14046/romney_instructed_employers_to_tell_employees_how_ to_vote_in_conference_cal/).
I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections.
The Koch Brothers are doing this as well, (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-10-15/news/34478265_1_koch-industries-koch-brothers-mitt-romney) in a less offensive way than this idiot telling their employees that if they vote for Obama they
may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills.
This guy too.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/arthur-allen-romney-email_n_1963965.html)
KevinNYC
10-20-2012, 05:42 PM
I don't read lib bias sites.
lol
and of course the article is completely factual and they contacted the CEO and gave a chance to respond, you know, basic journalism.
Math2
10-20-2012, 05:57 PM
I have a hard time believing successful businessmen would layoff employees just because their marginal tax rates increased slightly. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They know deep down layoff workers for no real economic reason is going to hurt them more than small tax increases
But ya it's disgusting how these guys treat their non-skilled labour. Why it's so importent to get diserable skills, so that you won't be raped by your bosses.
Wow, I mean it's the NONskilled workers that should get everything, and should be revered, and get any benefits they desire.
Math2
10-20-2012, 06:00 PM
There's audio of Romney supporting this idea from back in June (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14046/romney_instructed_employers_to_tell_employees_how_ to_vote_in_conference_cal/).
The Koch Brothers are doing this as well, (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-10-15/news/34478265_1_koch-industries-koch-brothers-mitt-romney) in a less offensive way than this idiot telling their employees that if they vote for Obama they
This guy too.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/arthur-allen-romney-email_n_1963965.html)
Oh yeah, Huffington Post, NY Daily, and some liberal blog, great sources.
Honestly, can anyone think that talking away from the companies doesn't hurt them? That you can take what you want from them and have them expect to stay exactly the same?
Scoooter
10-20-2012, 06:20 PM
Oh yeah, Huffington Post, NY Daily, and some liberal blog, great sources.
Honestly, can anyone think that talking away from the companies doesn't hurt them? That you can take what you want from them and have them expect to stay exactly the same?
If you take issue with the content of what they're reporting, argue that; show that to be inaccurate. Attacking the "liberal source" is just shooting the messenger, and only makes any argument your advancing look weaker, and less deserving of serious consideration.
If you take issue with the content of what they're reporting, argue that; show that to be inaccurate. Attacking the "liberal source" is just shooting the messenger, and only makes any argument your advancing look weaker, and less deserving of serious consideration.
Seriously. All they anybody has to do is post the CEO's direct statement and people can see clearly that he is a douche. There is no spin necessary for liberals with this news. The conservative however will spin this in a "Look what Obama is doing" sort of way rather than the more obvious "Look what this asshole CEO is doing."
RedBlackAttack
10-20-2012, 07:03 PM
Oligarchy.
Math2
10-20-2012, 07:16 PM
Seriously. All they anybody has to do is post the CEO's direct statement and people can see clearly that he is a douche. There is no spin necessary for liberals with this news. The conservative however will spin this in a "Look what Obama is doing" sort of way rather than the more obvious "Look what this asshole CEO is doing."
Because what Obama does has no bearing on what a CEO does.
SpecialQue
10-20-2012, 07:20 PM
Oh yeah, Huffington Post, NY Daily, and some liberal blog, great sources.
Here's Fox news:
http://nation.foxnews.com/david-siegel/2012/10/10/ceo-threatens-fire-employees-if-obama-reelected-and-raises-taxes
http://radio.foxnews.com/2012/10/15/koch-industries-sends-pro-romney-mail-to-45000-employees-warning-of-consequences/#.UIMx9IVRmRY
RaininThrees
10-20-2012, 08:06 PM
Bain Capital-controlled company buys voting machines for use in Ohio.
I'm sure there's no conflict here at all.
NOTHING CAN GO WRONG.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment
Because what Obama does has no bearing on what a CEO does.
The guy is obviously a greedy prick that cares about himself and nobody else. The guy is unwilling to lose just one of his many super extravagant luxuries in order to help out the families of a bunch of people that work for him. Even then he probably wouldn't even lose out on any actual luxuries to keep his employees, he would more likely just see a number change in his bank account that is so large he wouldn't be able to spend the money in his entire lifetime.
RaininThrees
10-20-2012, 08:16 PM
The guy is obviously a greedy prick that cares about himself and nobody else. The guy is unwilling to lose just one of his many super extravagant luxuries in order to help out the families of a bunch of people that work for him. Even then he probably wouldn't even lose out on any actual luxuries to keep his employees, he would more likely just see a number change in his bank account that is so large he wouldn't be able to spend the money in his entire lifetime.
Seriously though - isn't threatening someone's job if Obama is re-elected illegal? Depends on the state, maybe? I mean, he's basically telling them which way they should vote.
Seriously though - isn't threatening someone's job if Obama is re-elected illegal? Depends on the state, maybe? I mean, he's basically telling them which way they should vote.
It certainly should be.
RaininThrees
10-20-2012, 08:29 PM
Seriously though - isn't threatening someone's job if Obama is re-elected illegal? Depends on the state, maybe? I mean, he's basically telling them which way they should vote.
Hmm, apparently not. I would have thought it would be (it SHOULD be).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49421240/Can_Employers_Tell_Their_Workers_How_to_Vote
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 08:36 PM
Seriously though - isn't threatening someone's job if Obama is re-elected illegal? Depends on the state, maybe? I mean, he's basically telling them which way they should vote.
He's smarter than that he is basically saying I dont want to layoff workers, but I will have no choice, if my taxes increase. I won't make enough money to justify the risk I take if the government taxes away my profits, so I will be forced to downsize. When questioned about it he just says that he feels like his workers have a right to know how Obama increasing his taxes would affect his ability to employ them.
Its all BS on so many levels. Obama isnt going to pass crippling corporate taxes on anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/business/economy/obama-offers-to-cut-corporate-tax-rate-to-28.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
that article talks about Obama's willingness to cut stated corporate tax rate to 28% (current stated rate is 35%, but effective tax rates in America average 13-14%), and cut manufacturers' stated corporate tax rate to 25%. (for some reason we havent figured out the manufacturing being outsourced has nothing to do with high taxes, rather labour in China is like 40 cents an hour) If anything Obama is kind of stabbing his base in the back here, but what else is new, he still left of Romney and he is smart enough to know that will be sufficient.
Obama will repeal the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% (hopefully it happens this time, personally I hope for a full repeal, but thats not happening), raising taxes on the richest 2% to levels last seen during the famous Marxist administration of Bill Clinton, Oh how will the rich ever survive. :lol
The threat is an empty one, there is zero chance greedy CEOs layoff workers, if there is money to be made. A slight increase to their marginal tax rate isn't going to make them flush their companies down the drain. They wont be able to go in the voting booth with their workers, so they wont know who they voted for. If asked their workers could just lie. Obama is going to win, rich CEOs are going to continue being rich, and unless they want to hurt themselves financially they won't layoff workers for political reasons.
What's wrong with what he said? I don't get the outrage. So the CEO should pay employees at a loss just because he's rich? lol. You don't become rich with that sort of mentality. That's not how your business stays competitive.
MavsSuperFan
10-20-2012, 08:47 PM
What's wrong with what he said? I don't get the outrage. So the CEO should pay employees at a loss just because he's rich? lol. You don't become rich with that sort of mentality. That's not how your business stays competitive.
He is trying to intimidate voters into voting for his interests.
IcanzIIravor
10-20-2012, 08:53 PM
Oligarchy.
Yep, those type of individuals long for the gilded age and the days of Robber Barons. They probably gather together and curse the name of Upton Sinclair each year.
He is trying to intimidate voters into voting for his interests.
Obviously his interests in this case are their interests too. It's not intimidation, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather your boss tell you something like this, so you can at least be prepared for it?
IcanzIIravor
10-20-2012, 09:08 PM
Obviously his interests in this case are their interests too. It's not intimidation, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather your boss tell you something like this, so you can at least be prepared for it?
I think it stops short of voter intimidation, but would you have a problem if it was voter intimidation even though the boss is having [in his opinion] their interests at heart, if it was a more blatant threat?
kentatm
10-20-2012, 09:21 PM
Obviously his interests in this case are their interests too. It's not intimidation, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather your boss tell you something like this, so you can at least be prepared for it?
A man marries a woman and demands she makes him dinner every night. If she doesn't have it ready he may lose his temper and be forced to beat her. He doesn't want to but if he can't come home to a hot meal after a hard days work he will be forced to punish her. If that happens he may go to jail, lose his job, divorce her, and she will be left alone with no money. Obviously his interests are hers as well. It's a good thing he told her what would happen so she is at least prepared for it.
I think it stops short of voter intimidation, but would you have a problem if it was voter intimidation even though the boss is having [in his opinion] their interests at heart, if it was a more blatant threat?
It would depend on how he intimated them. Physical threats, I have a problem with. Saying he'd have them assaulted for voting Obama or something.
But if he threatened to fire them for voting Obama, I don't have a problem with that. I mean I do have a problem, because I think that's a stupid demand to place on someone. But I think it should be within his rights to do so. It's an employers choice who he hires and fires. The employees must decide if they're willing to work for someone who puts such strange demands on them. It's a give and take.
kentatm
10-20-2012, 09:24 PM
It would depend on how he intimated them. Physical threats, I have a problem with. Saying he'd have them assaulted for voting Obama or something.
But if he threatened to fire them for voting Obama, I don't have a problem with that. I mean I do have a problem, because I think that's a stupid demand to place on someone. But I think it should be within his rights to do so. It's an employers choice who he hires and fires. The employees must decide if they're willing to work for someone who puts such strange demands on them. It's a give and take.
If you don't make me a meal I'll divorce you and take the kids with me woman!
No dinner? YOU'RE FIRED!
KevinNYC
10-20-2012, 09:29 PM
What's wrong with what he said? I don't get the outrage. So the CEO should pay employees at a loss just because he's rich? lol. You don't become rich with that sort of mentality. That's not how your business stays competitive.
There's no ****ing way the CEO would be incurring a loss. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
This is about will he be able to spend $4 million dollars for the doors on his 90,000 foot house. Or will he have to spend only $3 million and cut back to 80,000 feet. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/versailles-florida-largest-home-america/story?id=16787565#.UINNmm9JNmk)
Also aren't you a libertarian? Do you think your boss should be able to dictate your personal political beliefs?
A man marries a woman and demands she makes him dinner every night. If she doesn't have it ready he may lose his temper and be forced to beat her. He doesn't want to but if he can't come home to a hot meal after a hard days work he will be forced to punish her. If that happens he may go to jail, lose his job, divorce her, and she will be left alone with no money. Obviously his interests are hers as well. It's a good thing he told her what would happen so she is at least prepared for it.
This is not an accurate analogy. The CEO has not threatened the employees with physical violence, the husband has.
This is more like, a husband demands a wife makes him dinner every night, or else he will leave her. The wife can make a choice... make the husband dinner or leave him. Nobody will blame the wife if she leaves. It is what it is.
But what the wife CAN'T do, is use the government to force the husband to stay with her, against his will, even if she refuses to make him dinner. That's unfair to the husband.
bmulls
10-20-2012, 09:35 PM
You fcking liberals I swear :facepalm
Did you even read the article you posted?
He goes on to say,
[quote]
Of course, as your employer, I can
There's no ****ing way the CEO would be incurring a loss. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
This is about will he be able to spend $4 million dollars for the doors on his 90,000 foot house. Or will he have to spend only $3 million and cut back to 80,000 feet. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/versailles-florida-largest-home-america/story?id=16787565#.UINNmm9JNmk)
Also aren't you a libertarian? Do you think your boss should be able to dictate your personal political beliefs?
If the CEO is truly firing these employees for a silly reason, all he's doing is helping his competitors, by giving them trained employees to hire. The boss isn't dictating anyones political beliefs. The employees can quit if they don't like the bosses demands.
And regardless, he didn't even threaten to fire them if they voted Obama. He said if Obama is re-elected, he might have to make cut backs. Big difference.
I cannot imagine being so rich that a tax increase (not all of my taxes, but just the part added) is more than the salaries of tons of workers.
I got this rep for this thread: "I'm gay - Millwad"
:lol
Rasheed1
10-20-2012, 10:08 PM
Are we gonna act like we don't see the real issue here?
The problem with what he said to his employees is that he telling them HOW to vote.
Nobody is saying he should go under... If he wants to close his business? then, that is his prerogative, but "warning" his employees about it is an obvious threat and an attempt to intimidate them into voting a certain way.
That's crazy... Americans dont go into voting booth to vote for their boss's candidate.. :hammerhead:
They go in to vote for their own candidate...
Between all the voter suppression with guys throwing registration forms in the dumpster, to these f'd voter I'D laws, to the supposed "mistake" in translation telling latino folks to vote on the 8th instead of the 6th?
This sh*t is starting to get out of control..
Its got to stop..
KevinNYC
10-20-2012, 10:11 PM
Oh yeah, Huffington Post, NY Daily, and some liberal blog, great sources.
Honestly, can anyone think that talking away from the companies doesn't hurt them? That you can take what you want from them and have them expect to stay exactly the same?
Headline from NY Daily News Political blog from yesterday
A new low for the liberal media
So conservative views are verboten over there.
:roll:
yobore
10-20-2012, 11:59 PM
Amazing how many CEO's this year don't understand that their taxes are based on what they made after their expenses, which include paying their employees. Lower or higher taxes doesn't play into how much a company expands or lays off its employees. It is all about demand.
Are we gonna act like we don't see the real issue here?
The problem with what he said to his employees is that he telling them HOW to vote.
Nobody is saying he should go under... If he wants to close his business? then, that is his prerogative, but "warning" his employees about it is an obvious threat and an attempt to intimidate them into voting a certain way.
That's crazy... Americans dont go into voting booth to vote for their boss's candidate.. :hammerhead:
They go in to vote for their own candidate...
Between all the voter suppression with guys throwing registration forms in the dumpster, to these f'd voter I'D laws, to the supposed "mistake" in translation telling latino folks to vote on the 8th instead of the 6th?
This sh*t is starting to get out of control..
Its got to stop..
So it's okay to fire people if the President's tax code deems it necessary, but it's not okay to tell your employees about it? Those are the rules? Seems like a pretty arbitrary moral boundary.
Sarcastic
10-21-2012, 12:54 AM
So it's okay to fire people if the President's tax code deems it necessary, but it's not okay to tell your employees about it? Those are the rules? Seems like a pretty arbitrary moral boundary.
So the rate of employment is related to the tax code? If we went to 0 taxes, we would have 100% employment? Is that what you are saying?
andgar923
10-21-2012, 01:11 AM
None of this is race related
So the rate of employment is related to the tax code? If we went to 0 taxes, we would have 100% employment? Is that what you are saying?
The rate of employment is definitely related to the tax code. How could it not be? Businesses are all about cost and profit, and taxes are part of the cost. The higher the "cost" of paying your taxes, the more it effects your ability to do anything else. That includes paying worker salary
bdreason
10-21-2012, 01:29 AM
This type of rhetoric can only backfire. He most likely convinced more people to vote Obama.
bdreason
10-21-2012, 01:36 AM
And to be honest, I'm not sure how this is legal. At least it shouldn't be. He has a lot of balls mailing something like this to his employees though. I would be insulted.
Sarcastic
10-21-2012, 03:00 AM
The rate of employment is definitely related to the tax code. How could it not be? Businesses are all about cost and profit, and taxes are part of the cost. The higher the "cost" of paying your taxes, the more it effects your ability to do anything else. That includes paying worker salary
But if the total cost of doing business goes down due to tax rates going up, then why would employers not employee more workers?
JtotheIzzo
10-21-2012, 03:02 AM
republicans and their rich friends are getting out of control...
The reason there are unions is because of situations like this. Republicans talk a big game about how much they love freedom and all this other happy horsesh*t...
telling people how to vote under the threat of losing job is about as anti-freedom, anti-american as it gets... but these clowns talk about saving america? lol
Truth is that these guys love only power and their own capacity to fulfill their greedy little fantasies of making the world their own little playground
the hypocrisy is astounding
nailed it
The rate of employment is definitely related to the tax code. How could it not be? Businesses are all about cost and profit, and taxes are part of the cost. The higher the "cost" of paying your taxes, the more it effects your ability to do anything else. That includes paying worker salary
If a company is losing money and operating with a small debt, then how does the taxcode impact them??? wouldn't that company not pay any federal taxes to begin with.
MavsSuperFan
10-21-2012, 10:44 AM
If a company is losing money and operating with a small debt, then how does the taxcode impact them??? wouldn't that company not pay any federal taxes to begin with.
The conservative argument here is that high tax rates reduce the profits that a successful business would generate, since the higher tax rates would eat into potential profits. The key here is that profit isn't guaranteed for every successful business venture there are multiple failures. Humans being risk adverse require higher returns to justify the risk of financial loss. If tax rates increase the argument is that potential after tax profits are decreased and thus certain investors are discouraged from pursuing an economic venture because they have calculated the potential after tax profits are no longer high enough to justify the risk inherent in business. Also they can move the location of their investment to an area with lower tax rates.
The Laffer Curve is a theory that if you taxed at 0% you would generate $0 of revenue, and if you taxed at 100% you would also generate $0 in revenue. This is due obviously to the fact that all economic benefits have been removed. I feel that this theory is accurate.
The disagreement between conservatives and liberals is to the shape of the Laffer curve. Conservatives generally believe in a symmetric Laffer Curve as depicted in the photo below (I hope this works)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Laffer-Curve.svg
Liberals/Keynesians believe in a asymmetric Laffer curve that favors the right side.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/LafferCurve.svg
As you can see Keynesians like myself believe that higher tax rates will generate higher revenues, but until rates become too extreme. Its important to find the proper rate to tax high income individuals. I think most reasonable people would agree current rates are too low, and should at least increase to the clinton era rates. Even the reagan rates were much higher than the clinton rates.
Rasheed1
10-21-2012, 11:39 AM
The rate of employment is definitely related to the tax code. How could it not be? Businesses are all about cost and profit, and taxes are part of the cost. The higher the "cost" of paying your taxes, the more it effects your ability to do anything else. That includes paying worker salary
:hammerhead: stop being ignorant joe... The tax increase for the wealthiest Americans would move up maybe 4%..
These guys arent gonna be taxed into oblivion, they are just GREEDY. These guys have done well under Obama, the only thing that is hurt is their huge egos.
the whining and crying and acting like Obama is gonna usher some draconian tax code change is just another republican lie...
stop it..
Jailblazers7
10-21-2012, 12:57 PM
Last time I checked the business world wasnt an apocalyptic wasteland before the Bush tax cuts in 2001...
REACTION
10-21-2012, 01:49 PM
:hammerhead: stop being ignorant joe... The tax increase for the wealthiest Americans would move up maybe 4%..
Wait, is this CEO complaining about potential increases in personal income taxes or corporate taxes? If it's personal income, then I don't see how that would even impact his business operations.
:hammerhead: stop being ignorant joe... The tax increase for the wealthiest Americans would move up maybe 4%..
These guys arent gonna be taxed into oblivion, they are just GREEDY. These guys have done well under Obama, the only thing that is hurt is their huge egos.
the whining and crying and acting like Obama is gonna usher some draconian tax code change is just another republican lie...
stop it..
Why are the business owners greedy for wanting to keep the 4%, the 4% THEY EARNED mind you, but it's somehow noble when the government gets it?
Government is just as greedy as business. Government has a huge ego just like business.
The government plans to collect 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS in income tax in 2013. For comparison, the gross profit of Microsoft from September 2011-September 2012 was $57.39 billion. Whoa! Here's what needs to stop- people acting like the government is some poor orphan child with no money.
If government can't make due with that much, I have no sympathy for them. They're a wasteful group with no concept of fiscal responsibility. I'd much rather have Bill Gates privately investing his money than the government metaphorically sniffing cocaine off strippers asses, at the taxpayers expense.
Rasheed1
10-21-2012, 06:20 PM
Why are the business owners greedy for wanting to keep the 4%, the 4% THEY EARNED mind you, but it's somehow noble when the government gets it?
Government is just as greedy as business. Government has a huge ego just like business.
The government plans to collect 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS in income tax in 2013. For comparison, the gross profit of Microsoft from September 2011-September 2012 was $57.39 billion. Whoa! Here's what needs to stop- people acting like the government is some poor orphan child with no money.
If government can't make due with that much, I have no sympathy for them. They're a wasteful group with no concept of fiscal responsibility. I'd much rather have Bill Gates privately investing his money than the government metaphorically sniffing cocaine off strippers asses, at the taxpayers expense.
None of your post speaks to un-american idea that bosses should intimidate their workers to vote a certain way.
my point remains.
If you wanna shut business down when Obama gets re-elected? go on and do it.
But "warning" your employees about the potential loss of their jobs is a disgrace. At least in America.
The Real JW
10-21-2012, 06:44 PM
If you wanna shut business down when Obama gets re-elected? go on and do it.
But "warning" your employees about the potential loss of their jobs is a disgrace. At least in America.
You'd rather he just spring it on them as a fun surprise?
kentatm
10-21-2012, 06:52 PM
[QUOTE] Top CEOs make 3,489 times the average US worker
WASHINGTON
poor CEOs. They deserve to make 200 times more than the lowest paid employees. Its not causing problems with the economy at all!
Your post contains some good facts.. but facts are pretty empty by themselves. CEO'S are earning 200x more than the lowest paid employees, okay.. so what? I don't disagree with you, but the facts themselves don't present any obvious cure to our problems. Does it mean we should put a cap on CEO earnings? Does it mean we should raise the minimum wage? Does it mean we need less government intervention? The facts themselves don't answer these questions.
Like if I say, "The Yankees have made the playoffs every year but one since 1996," that doesn't explain WHY, or give a cure to this problem, or even tell you if there is a problem. It's just stating a fact. Okay, CEO's make a bunch of money. So what?
I'm not saying I know the answer, because I don't. But the general vibe from leftists lately has just been getting creepy. Their whole thought process seems to be, "we hate rich people." It's become a legit argument to just state the salaries of rich people.. as if that ends the debate. And Kent, I'm not trying to be rude here, that's just something I've noticed over time.
IcanzIIravor
10-21-2012, 08:10 PM
You'd rather he just spring it on them as a fun surprise?
Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man.
The Real JW
10-21-2012, 08:14 PM
Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man.
That doesn't answer my question though.
If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.
Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man
That doesn't answer my question though.
If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.
Real JW, I agree with what you're saying here. But to ravor.. so what if he builds a 300 million dollar mansion? Is the guy not allowed to have a 300 million dollar mansion? If the CEO owns this business, it's not our right to tell him what to do with his profits. He doesn't owe his employees a job. Just like it wouldn't be the CEO's right to tell an employee he can't quit "just so he can get an extra 10 bucks an hour" someplace else.
But at the same time ravor, there is two levels to your words. On the personal level, I completely agree with you. If the CEO is raking in that much cash, I would personally dislike him for firing employees under this scenario. I feel the pain of the employees and I would prefer he didn't fire them. But where I draw the line is political action- people saying it should be illegal for him to fire them. To me, it's not our (or the governments) right to make decisions for a business, or a CEO. It's their business, it's their jobs, it's their profit, and it's their life.
Jailblazers7
10-21-2012, 08:34 PM
That doesn't answer my question though.
If I were an employee of that company and the owner was seriously contemplating layoffs due to a potential upcoming increase in taxes, I would want to know. It doesn't mean I'd change my votes or not be angry at the owner, but I would rather he be upfront about his intentions that directly affect me as an employee.
I understand this sentiment but the CEO using the threat of layoffs as a tool of political influence is a slippery slope and has the potential to undermine the integrity of political elections in this country.
In reality, the CEO is uncertain if Obama will be able to get a tax raised passed and what the impact those raises will have on his business. The move he pulled is wrong and has no place in our political system imo.
IcanzIIravor
10-21-2012, 09:02 PM
Real JW, I agree with what you're saying here. But to ravor.. so what if he builds a 300 million dollar mansion? Is the guy not allowed to have a 300 million dollar mansion? If the CEO owns this business, it's not our right to tell him what to do with his profits. He doesn't owe his employees a job. Just like it wouldn't be the CEO's right to tell an employee he can't quit "just so he can get an extra 10 bucks an hour" someplace else.
But at the same time ravor, there is two levels to your words. On the personal level, I completely agree with you. If the CEO is raking in that much cash, I would personally dislike him for firing employees under this scenario. I feel the pain of the employees and I would prefer he didn't fire them. But where I draw the line is political action- people saying it should be illegal for him to fire them. To me, it's not our (or the governments) right to make decisions for a business, or a CEO. It's their business, it's their jobs, it's their profit, and it's their life.
It should be illegal to fire them based on if he is firing them over who they voted for. How you can be a libertarian yet be okay with this happening theoretically is beyond me. I think he has stopped short of actually stating this, but he is certainly right on the line. The next step is forcing his workers to bring proof of who they voted for and using that as a basis of either firing or keeping that. Would you still be supportive of these ceo's if they did that?
Balla_Status
10-21-2012, 10:38 PM
Honestly don't see anything wrong with what he said. Not like he didn't work for what he got. This thread proves what he's said about people thinking he didn't earn what he has.
And he's not threatening voters. He doesn't know who voted for who so he's not saying, "Vote Obama and you will get fired."
He can't know that. Some people are misunderstanding his letter and twisting his words.
Balla_Status
10-21-2012, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE=andgar923]None of this is race related
Balla_Status
10-21-2012, 10:47 PM
I understand this sentiment but the CEO using the threat of layoffs as a tool of political influence is a slippery slope and has the potential to undermine the integrity of political elections in this country.
In reality, the CEO is uncertain if Obama will be able to get a tax raised passed and what the impact those raises will have on his business. The move he pulled is wrong and has no place in our political system imo.
The government has introduced the political influence themselves by taxing the corporation.
It should be illegal to fire them based on if he is firing them over who they voted for. How you can be a libertarian yet be okay with this happening theoretically is beyond me. I think he has stopped short of actually stating this, but he is certainly right on the line. The next step is forcing his workers to bring proof of who they voted for and using that as a basis of either firing or keeping that. Would you still be supportive of these ceo's if they did that?
Again, there's two levels. I don't think it should be illegal to do that, but on a personal level I don't love it.
Frankly, all of this can be decided very easily on the free market. Business that will ONLY hire Democrats or ONLY hire Republicans necessarily weaken the talent pool of their employees. The employees they don't hire will be scooped up by competitors, leaving them at a disadvantage. Behavior like what you're describing would be very risky for an employer.
Throwing the government into this equation just needlessly complicates it. The market would handle it without batting an eyelash, very simply. Either you want to work for an employer who controls who you vote for, or you don't. I'd guess most people wouldn't, and most employers wouldn't bother asking.
Jailblazers7
10-21-2012, 11:07 PM
The government has introduced the political influence themselves by taxing the corporation.
The legal system is the reason free market can work. There at least needs to be some minimum tax rate on corporation and businesses in order to maintain the legal framework that gives credibility to financial systems and markets.
ALBballer
10-21-2012, 11:12 PM
Hypothetically if the owner did fire the employees and go off to the bahamas, and assuming there is a demand for this product or service then another business would certainly take over and these employees could potentially find a job at this new business. Not to mention the employees do not have to disclosed who they voted for. And there are a ton shit of other things. Basically this is some empty "threat" (for lack of a better word.)
Anyways this is all nonsense. Is it unethical for the boss to influence his employees political decisions with this empty "threat?" Sure. But this sorts of threats happen all the time. Just look at the candidates themselves. Barack Obama claims if Romney would win then the country would fall apart and vice versa.
ALBballer
10-21-2012, 11:15 PM
Heaven forbid a guy building a 300 + million dollar mansion have to fire his employees because he doesn't want to overpay for the special marble his wife wants in the bathroom, even though he is still making his money. That poor man.
This is all relative. Our living standards are better than the majority of the world. Poor generic American who is making 30k this year instead of 40k. I guess you can't buy your Ipad or eat out every weekend.
ALBballer
10-21-2012, 11:20 PM
Amazing how many CEO's this year don't understand that their taxes are based on what they made after their expenses, which include paying their employees. Lower or higher taxes doesn't play into how much a company expands or lays off its employees. It is all about demand.
Well there's profits (which you are referring to) and profits after taxes. Taxes are a expense.
yobore
10-21-2012, 11:54 PM
Well there's profits (which you are referring to) and profits after taxes. Taxes are a expense.
OK but the idea that they can't afford to keep their workers because of higher taxes is what I'm talking about. They can argue that it reduces their incentive to grow (though I doubt it actually does in 99% of cases and the historical record shows that the economy has done very well with much higher taxes than we have currently), but higher taxes doesn't make it so they can no longer afford to keep people hired.
OK but the idea that they can't afford to keep their workers because of higher taxes is what I'm talking about. They can argue that it reduces their incentive to grow (though I doubt it actually does in 99% of cases and the historical record shows that the economy has done very well with much higher taxes than we have currently), but higher taxes doesn't make it so they can no longer afford to keep people hired.
It might mean they can make more money doing something else though. If taxes knock their profits down to 1 million from 1.5 million, they might say screw it.. I'd rather just invest my money and save the time. Know what I'm saying? Opportunity cost.
KevinNYC
10-22-2012, 12:29 AM
The legal system is the reason free market can work. There at least needs to be some minimum tax rate on corporation and businesses in order to maintain the legal framework that gives credibility to financial systems and markets.
Not to mention that this is just nonsensical
The government has introduced the political influence themselves by taxing the corporation.
The could have chosen to threaten his employees because of how they would vote on abortion or war with Iran and the principle is the same, it's anti-democratic.
johndeeregreen
10-22-2012, 01:24 AM
There's really no way to spin this. Whether or not Obama's policies would lead him to the decision to cut jobs is irrelevant; this is the United States of America FFS. You should be able to go to work and not receive veiled threats against your job unless you vote a certain way. Personally I feel any workplace memorandum discussing political views is unprofessional, but since he was obviously hellbent on doing this, he couldn't have just outlined why he felt Romney's policies would be better for the company on the whole? Instead of saying that if Obama is elected you can start to fear for your jobs? Come on.
Balla_Status
10-22-2012, 08:43 PM
The legal system is the reason free market can work. There at least needs to be some minimum tax rate on corporation and businesses in order to maintain the legal framework that gives credibility to financial systems and markets.
Ok. Doesn't make my post any less true. Government influences how companies operate. Can't blame the business. It starts at the government.
Jailblazers7
10-22-2012, 08:52 PM
Ok. Doesn't make my post any less true. Government influences how companies operate. Can't blame the business. It starts at the government.
I'm really not getting your point.
JtotheIzzo
10-22-2012, 09:42 PM
Ok. Doesn't make my post any less true. Government influences how companies operate. Can't blame the business. It starts at the government.
Not exactly Hawkboy, corporations actually wield greater influence on government than the other way around, taxation and regulation is a small part of the big picture, and they are accounted for the same way as any other road block while building or operating a business.
Presenting these government implementations as company killers is nonsense, there are many more difficult challenges that businesses face.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.