Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[OnePercenter]

The subordinates make all of the revenue. The CEO sets the direction and delegates.

Again... that is simply not true and it's one of many things you've said that leads me to think you've never run a business in your life. Everyone in a company is of value, otherwise, they wouldn't be there... the company is about making profit and there's no room for people to be paid who bring no value to the table. So everyone is of value and they are generally paid accordingly.

Revenue, on the other hand, is the money brought in by a company. Out of that, expenses have to be paid and that leaves the profit. Revenue is going to depend on a myriad of factors. It's not solely determined by the "subordinates." How much revenue could a sewing company make without sewing machines? Did the seamstress furnish the sewing machine? What about the thread and material? How about the marketing and advertising for the products? Does the seamstress work on that as well? Do they provide the insurance, maintenance, transportation costs, etc.? So... how can you possibly claim they make all the revenue? They perform a task and are paid for what they do. It's FAR from being all there is to producing revenue.

You are simply a mental midget, posing here as someone who is supposedly wealthy. What a fucking JOKE... you're not wealthy, you're probably a fraudulent disability recipient with nothing better to do every day than sit here on your computer (which someone else paid for) espousing the virtues of Marxism.

Companies are about providing a product or service to gain profit.

Heren't the thing you're not understanding about debating. When you respond to a post as if you disagree with it, it's kind of assumed that you're against they point they made. Capiche?

I never actually been in a debate on USMB. I have spent a lot of time correcting stupid.

But at some point you actually need to stop talking to yourself and correspond with other people...

Thank you for making my point!

 

[OnePercenter]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

There are billions of trillions of dollars just in investments. If 10% of that was used for investing in people, this would be a better palce.

Now I know you're full of it. There are not sextillions of dollars just in investments.

If I'm wrong than prove it, don't bloviate about it.

 

[hadit]

Did I say it was? It is the exact same thing though. If the wages are not acceptable, then don't take the job. If you don't think the jacket is worth what the seller is asking, then buy a jacket elsewhere.

Did I say it was? It is the exact same thing though. If the wages are not acceptable, then don't take the job. If you don't think the jacket is worth what the seller is asking, then buy a jacket elsewhere.

What if all the wages are not acceptable and retailers conspired to drive up jacket prices?

Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class...Alphonse Gabriel Capone

Price fixing between businesses is illegal. Between unions, however, it's perfectly legal. The truth, though, is simple. A valuable employee will earn more.

Walmart comes in using tax payer subsidies, lowers prices to eliminate competition, then once the competition is gone they start incrementally raising prices. That's NOT price fixing?

How do Unions price fix?

By demanding the same wages as all the other unions. Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?

Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor?

Reading comprehension problems? The point of the question is that you do not see unions undercutting other unions' wage floors. That means they are not in competition, but are cooperating. You take it the next step to price fixing.

 

[hadit]

Again... that is simply not true and it's one of many things you've said that leads me to think you've never run a business in your life. Everyone in a company is of value, otherwise, they wouldn't be there... the company is about making profit and there's no room for people to be paid who bring no value to the table. So everyone is of value and they are generally paid accordingly.

Revenue, on the other hand, is the money brought in by a company. Out of that, expenses have to be paid and that leaves the profit. Revenue is going to depend on a myriad of factors. It's not solely determined by the "subordinates." How much revenue could a sewing company make without sewing machines? Did the seamstress furnish the sewing machine? What about the thread and material? How about the marketing and advertising for the products? Does the seamstress work on that as well? Do they provide the insurance, maintenance, transportation costs, etc.? So... how can you possibly claim they make all the revenue? They perform a task and are paid for what they do. It's FAR from being all there is to producing revenue.

You are simply a mental midget, posing here as someone who is supposedly wealthy. What a fucking JOKE... you're not wealthy, you're probably a fraudulent disability recipient with nothing better to do every day than sit here on your computer (which someone else paid for) espousing the virtues of Marxism.

Companies are about providing a product or service to gain profit.

Heren't the thing you're not understanding about debating. When you respond to a post as if you disagree with it, it's kind of assumed that you're against they point they made. Capiche?

I never actually been in a debate on USMB. I have spent a lot of time correcting stupid.

But at some point you actually need to stop talking to yourself and correspond with other people...

Thank you for making my point!

Good, then you are done fixing your own stupid?

 

[OnePercenter]

Did I say it was? It is the exact same thing though. If the wages are not acceptable, then don't take the job. If you don't think the jacket is worth what the seller is asking, then buy a jacket elsewhere.

What if all the wages are not acceptable and retailers conspired to drive up jacket prices?

Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class...Alphonse Gabriel Capone

Price fixing between businesses is illegal. Between unions, however, it's perfectly legal. The truth, though, is simple. A valuable employee will earn more.

Walmart comes in using tax payer subsidies, lowers prices to eliminate competition, then once the competition is gone they start incrementally raising prices. That's NOT price fixing?

How do Unions price fix?

By demanding the same wages as all the other unions. Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?

Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor?

Reading comprehension problems? The point of the question is that you do not see unions undercutting other unions' wage floors. That means they are not in competition, but are cooperating. You take it the next step to price fixing.

You stated: 'Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?' I asked: Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor? If you want to make a point then name the Union's involved.

 

[OnePercenter]

Companies are about providing a product or service to gain profit.

Heren't the thing you're not understanding about debating. When you respond to a post as if you disagree with it, it's kind of assumed that you're against they point they made. Capiche?

I never actually been in a debate on USMB. I have spent a lot of time correcting stupid.

But at some point you actually need to stop talking to yourself and correspond with other people...

Thank you for making my point!

Good, then you are done fixing your own stupid?

More bloviating?

 

[hadit]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

There are billions of trillions of dollars just in investments. If 10% of that was used for investing in people, this would be a better palce.

Now I know you're full of it. There are not sextillions of dollars just in investments.

If I'm wrong than prove it, don't bloviate about it.

I do not have to prove that there are not sextillions of dollars in investments. The entire world is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, not anywhere close to sextillions. The fact that you are unclear about that tells me you know diddly squat about business, money, or much of anything else. You are quite safely mocked and ignored.

 

[hadit]

Price fixing between businesses is illegal. Between unions, however, it's perfectly legal. The truth, though, is simple. A valuable employee will earn more.

Walmart comes in using tax payer subsidies, lowers prices to eliminate competition, then once the competition is gone they start incrementally raising prices. That's NOT price fixing?

How do Unions price fix?

By demanding the same wages as all the other unions. Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?

Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor?

Reading comprehension problems? The point of the question is that you do not see unions undercutting other unions' wage floors. That means they are not in competition, but are cooperating. You take it the next step to price fixing.

You stated: 'Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?' I asked: Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor? If you want to make a point then name the Union's involved.

I asked, not stated. You're just flailing, because you got caught with a reading comprehension problem. Now you're also caught not understanding wealth and money.

 

[hadit]

Heren't the thing you're not understanding about debating. When you respond to a post as if you disagree with it, it's kind of assumed that you're against they point they made. Capiche?

I never actually been in a debate on USMB. I have spent a lot of time correcting stupid.

But at some point you actually need to stop talking to yourself and correspond with other people...

Thank you for making my point!

Good, then you are done fixing your own stupid?

More bloviating?

No thank you, I've seen quite enough of that from you already.

 

[P@triot]

Compiling information is grunt work. CEO's don't do grunt work, their subordinates do.

It's amazing - everything is "grunt work" in your mind. It's amazing how many corporations are paying six-figures for people to do "grunt work". I think we've established that you have no idea what a CEO does.

 

[OnePercenter]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

There are billions of trillions of dollars just in investments. If 10% of that was used for investing in people, this would be a better palce.

Now I know you're full of it. There are not sextillions of dollars just in investments.

If I'm wrong than prove it, don't bloviate about it.

I do not have to prove that there are not sextillions of dollars in investments. The entire world is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, not anywhere close to sextillions. The fact that you are unclear about that tells me you know diddly squat about business, money, or much of anything else. You are quite safely mocked and ignored.

Here ya go.

Here’s all the money in the world, in one chart

 

[OnePercenter]

Walmart comes in using tax payer subsidies, lowers prices to eliminate competition, then once the competition is gone they start incrementally raising prices. That's NOT price fixing?

How do Unions price fix?

By demanding the same wages as all the other unions. Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?

Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor?

Reading comprehension problems? The point of the question is that you do not see unions undercutting other unions' wage floors. That means they are not in competition, but are cooperating. You take it the next step to price fixing.

You stated: 'Ever see a union undercut another union's wage floor?' I asked: Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor? If you want to make a point then name the Union's involved.

I asked, not stated. You're just flailing, because you got caught with a reading comprehension problem. Now you're also caught not understanding wealth and money.

Which Union 'undercut' another's wage floor?

 

[OnePercenter]

Compiling information is grunt work. CEO's don't do grunt work, their subordinates do.

It's amazing - everything is "grunt work" in your mind. It's amazing how many corporations are paying six-figures for people to do "grunt work". I think we've established that you have no idea what a CEO does.

A CEO's job is to make decisions based on compiled fact, NOT to compile the facts.

 

[westwall]

Compiling information is grunt work. CEO's don't do grunt work, their subordinates do.

It's amazing - everything is "grunt work" in your mind. It's amazing how many corporations are paying six-figures for people to do "grunt work". I think we've established that you have no idea what a CEO does.

That was established long ago. one pee pee is only capable of regurgitating talking points. His CEO experience consists of what he has seen in the movies. And none of this has the slightest thing to do with public assistance. How about we get back to that subject.

 

[Conservative65]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

It should be 0.0%.

Anytime you want some freeloader getting something I suggest you provide them with a percentage of your money.

We've spent as a country $22 trillion dollars over the past 50 years trying to have a massive effect on poverty. We have today the same percentage of American in poverty as we did before wasting that much.

When the Constitution includes the word food stamps, healthcare, WIC, Section 8 housing, and the like, you'll have a point. As long as it includes a delegated authority of Congress to raise and support a military with funding, you have no argument other than you don't like the amount for which authority is given to spend thinking it should go to something for which no authority exists.

 

[kaz]

Yep, you're a liar, thanks!

You've never heard of a family trust corporation? One of those nifty Nevada tricks, as Nevada doesn't share corporation information with the IRS.

Bill Gates is a Nevada corporation. So is Microsoft.

Family trust corporations is not a type of corporation. It's a corporation owned by a trust.

How do you live if your entire salary is retained in the trust?

No, it's a trust that incorporated for tax advantages.

How do I live? Very well, thank you! Debit and credit cards provided by the trust who provides for those listed in the trust.

Oh stop lying you lying sack of shit. If you take your salary, you pay taxes on it

My salary is $1.00/yr. Through hiring financial experts, I'm one of the many thousands of 'unemployed' rich people.

Here's a story from 2012 that illustrates;

Millionaires On US Unemployment? Yes, And That's Perfectly Legal (For Now)

Again not knowing what you are talking about, why would you pay yourself a $1 salary? That has nothing to do with owning your company through a trust.

That being while again you can't explain your lie that you didn't know you have to pay taxes on the money you take out every year to invest in your own portfolio and live on.

You need to write MS-NBC and complain they aren't helping you be a fake CEO well enough, you need more information so you don't look like the imbecile they are making you look like here

 

[Conservative65]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

You want an answer? I'll give you an answer - though you'll never understand or accept it.....

The US Constitution make NO PROVISIONS for the expenditure of Federal funds on ANY form of welfare. Not for social or personal welfare.

Therefore the 0.7% the United States spends on these things is 0.7% too much.

Exactly what I told him. What I can't get any that believe like Czernobog to explain is why, if they think such spending should take place, they don't spend their own money and set the example by proving they care as much for people as they say they do.

 

[Conservative65]

Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???

Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.

When you subsidize laziness and acceptance of poverty, you get what you pay for.

Well, like I said, not a single civilized nation in the world agrees with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Since you like what other places do, and say there are many of them, that should give you plenty of choices where to go. Get to stepping, boy.

 

[P@triot]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

It should be 0.0%.

Anytime you want some freeloader getting something I suggest you provide them with a percentage of your money.

We've spent as a country $22 trillion dollars over the past 50 years trying to have a massive effect on poverty. We have today the same percentage of American in poverty as we did before wasting that much.

When the Constitution includes the word food stamps, healthcare, WIC, Section 8 housing, and the like, you'll have a point. As long as it includes a delegated authority of Congress to raise and support a military with funding, you have no argument other than you don't like the amount for which authority is given to spend thinking it should go to something for which no authority exists.

Actually it's worse than that - we have a higher percentage now than we did before. Because government "public assistance" incentivizes people not to work. So they don't.

 

[kaz]

Oh stop lying you lying sack of shit. If you take your salary, you pay taxes on it

My salary is $1.00/yr. Through hiring financial experts, I'm one of the many thousands of 'unemployed' rich people.

Here's a story from 2012 that illustrates;

Millionaires On US Unemployment? Yes, And That's Perfectly Legal (For Now)

That isn't what I asked. I asked how you live

Very well, thank you.

Exactly. Again, you prove you don't know what you are talking about. You said you don't pay taxes, showing you heard about CEOs and trusts on MS-NBC and didn't realize you have to pay taxes on the money you withdraw because Keith Olberman didn't explain that part to you. So with low information, you gave the low information response you don't pay taxes. You're a terrible liar

When did I withdraw money? I use debit and credit cards paid by a Nevada corporation. Nevada doesn't share information with the IRS.

You make $4.5 million and you live on tax fraud. Got it And I thought you were lying ...