Trump will leave office with a historically bad economic record

[Harry Dresden]

The people who are really going to get squeezed here are the ones making MW to about 12 dollars an hour and those are the people most easily replaced by technology.

So what. Some on the left are for actually solving for economic phenomena not just wasting money on alleged wars.

UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment easily solves that dilemma. Only the right wing has a problem mustering, goodwill toward men.

You are talking about welfare not unemployment compensation.

Since you obviously don't know this

All businesses pay State and Federal Unemployment taxes know as SUTA and FUTA the tax is calculated from the payroll of each business. If have never worked you have never been on a payroll therefore you have no claim on any of the money paid by businesses to fund unemployment.

You want to be a welfare bum

danny is just another phony here trying to act like they know what they are talking about....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

 

[Blues Man]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

You miss the point. For-profit firms are expected to be profit oriented as their reason for existence.

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

danny would know this if he knew what he was talking about.....but he thinks he is an expert.....the guy did not even know were ellis island was....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

danny feels jules should be paid to be that bum regardless.......danny is pretty clueless........

 

[danielpalos]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Why incorporate on a for-profit basis if profit means nothing?

 

[Blues Man]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

 

[danielpalos]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

 

[danielpalos]

The people who are really going to get squeezed here are the ones making MW to about 12 dollars an hour and those are the people most easily replaced by technology.

So what. Some on the left are for actually solving for economic phenomena not just wasting money on alleged wars.

UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment easily solves that dilemma. Only the right wing has a problem mustering, goodwill toward men.

You are talking about welfare not unemployment compensation.

Since you obviously don't know this

All businesses pay State and Federal Unemployment taxes know as SUTA and FUTA the tax is calculated from the payroll of each business. If have never worked you have never been on a payroll therefore you have no claim on any of the money paid by businesses to fund unemployment.

You want to be a welfare bum

danny is just another phony here trying to act like they know what they are talking about....

lol. Yet, it is Right Wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Why incorporate on a for-profit basis if profit means nothing?

You do know that the vast majority of businesses are not publicly traded don't you?

All a corporation does for these privately owned businesses is provide a legal protection for the owners behind the corporate veil.

I have an S corp and 2 LLCs, My wife owns an S corp.

I showed zero or negative profits for the first 5 or 6 years when I was buying and flipping houses and when I was heavily leveraged when acquiring other commercial properties.

 

[danielpalos]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

You miss the point. For-profit firms are expected to be profit oriented as their reason for existence.

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

danny would know this if he knew what he was talking about.....but he thinks he is an expert.....the guy did not even know were ellis island was....

Your bigotry is showing. Simply having a legal place to go prevents an illegal problem and an illegal underclass.

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Then you know that it can be acceptable to take a loss so as to offset the taxes from future earnings. Or that a business can show ZERO profit because it has aggressively reinvested profits and used depreciation schedules

You are referring to "showing a loss".

 

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

Financial losses are never acceptable to business owners because the financial loss is their loss.

Of course you're wrong.

There can be any number of reasons that a business shows zero or negative profit.

That doesn't necessarily mean the business owner lost money

True

 

[danielpalos]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

lol. Explain how I am wrong with a valid argument. You simply claiming what you do means nothing but hypocrisy.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Then you know that it can be acceptable to take a loss so as to offset the taxes from future earnings. Or that a business can show ZERO profit because it has aggressively reinvested profits and used depreciation schedules

You are referring to "showing a loss".

There is no difference.

A loss is a loss

 

[Blues Man]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

lol. Explain how I am wrong with a valid argument. You simply claiming what you do means nothing but hypocrisy.

You are wrong because as I have told you there are times where it is perfectly acceptable to run at zero or negative profits.

But you don't understand it

 

[danielpalos]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Why incorporate on a for-profit basis if profit means nothing?

You do know that the vast majority of businesses are not publicly traded don't you?

All a corporation does for these privately owned businesses is provide a legal protection for the owners behind the corporate veil.

I have an S corp and 2 LLCs, My wife owns an S corp.

I showed zero or negative profits for the first 5 or 6 years when I was buying and flipping houses and when I was heavily leveraged when acquiring other commercial properties.

Why the legal distinction between for-profit and not-for-the-profit-of-lucre?

 

[Blues Man]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Why incorporate on a for-profit basis if profit means nothing?

You do know that the vast majority of businesses are not publicly traded don't you?

All a corporation does for these privately owned businesses is provide a legal protection for the owners behind the corporate veil.

I have an S corp and 2 LLCs, My wife owns an S corp.

I showed zero or negative profits for the first 5 or 6 years when I was buying and flipping houses and when I was heavily leveraged when acquiring other commercial properties.

Why the legal distinction between for-profit and not-for-the-profit-of-lucre?

Tax treatment.

And not for profit businesses have to jump through a lot of hoops to keep that designation.

The other reason is that you cannot sell a not for profit business because it has no owners in the traditional sense. So if you want to build a business to sell it when you retire you can't be a non profit .

Non Profit Ownership: Everything You Need to Know

A non profit ownership structure, unlike a for-profit company, does not include shareholders and does not determine ownership by a percentage of shares.

www.upcounsel.com