Letter to Employees

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Letter to Employees

2009-01-20 19:40:16

#101

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6804|so randum

DrunkFace wrote:
Lets make this nice and simple.

There is one business, a rudimentary government which just does transfer payments and a few employees.

This country has 10 people living there, 5 are employed in the one business, 5 are unemployed.

Scenario 1 (The Lowing approach):
The taxes from the Business go straight back to the business so it can 'grow'. Unfortunately because there are only 5 people who have an income, there are only 5 people buying anything so the company only needs 5 employees to cover the demand. But at least the owner is happy and can go on a nice overseas holiday. The 5 unemployed are never going to get a job no matter how hard they try. The business is never going to expand because there is no extra demand for their product.

Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.

V.Good analogy, i'd +1 if i could

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-01-20 19:53:30

#102

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6978|Canberra, AUS

Wow, lowing. Don't become an economist.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-01-20 20:05:50

#103

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

DrunkFace wrote:
Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.

Plus you've got 10 people with spending power who are going to stimulate the economy from buying things. Not just 5.

"lolwing"

2009-01-20 20:26:09

#104

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7020

DrunkFace wrote:
Lets make this nice and simple.

There is one business, a rudimentary government which just does transfer payments and a few employees.

This country has 10 people living there, 5 are employed in the one business, 5 are unemployed.

Scenario 1 (The Lowing approach):
The taxes from the Business go straight back to the business so it can 'grow'. Unfortunately because there are only 5 people who have an income, there are only 5 people buying anything so the company only needs 5 employees to cover the demand. But at least the owner is happy and can go on a nice overseas holiday. The 5 unemployed are never going to get a job no matter how hard they try. The business is never going to expand because there is no extra demand for their product.

Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.

You have it all figured out.... everybody in tenpeopleville is happy as can be...lol
One thing you missed is that the govt doesn't just tax the successful business owner and give it to the poor... they use it for their own programs that are extremely efficient...lol... and if they do give poor people a check for doing nothing... what is the poor persons incentive to do anything?
And i am not talking about taking care of people who can't take care of themselves... just the people that feel entitled to something for nothing...

We will all see if OB increases taxes on the evil nasty heartless rich business owner... and then we will see how well your theories play out...
Damn the people for trying to be successful... lets all relax and just have a check sent to the house... lol...

Love is the answer

2009-01-20 21:12:20

#105

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6978|Canberra, AUS

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Lets make this nice and simple.

There is one business, a rudimentary government which just does transfer payments and a few employees.

This country has 10 people living there, 5 are employed in the one business, 5 are unemployed.

Scenario 1 (The Lowing approach):
The taxes from the Business go straight back to the business so it can 'grow'. Unfortunately because there are only 5 people who have an income, there are only 5 people buying anything so the company only needs 5 employees to cover the demand. But at least the owner is happy and can go on a nice overseas holiday. The 5 unemployed are never going to get a job no matter how hard they try. The business is never going to expand because there is no extra demand for their product.

Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.
You have it all figured out.... everybody in tenpeopleville is happy as can be...lol
One thing you missed is that the govt doesn't just tax the successful business owner and give it to the poor... they use it for their own programs that are extremely efficient...lol... and if they do give poor people a check for doing nothing... what is the poor persons incentive to do anything?
And i am not talking about taking care of people who can't take care of themselves... just the people that feel entitled to something for nothing...

We will all see if OB increases taxes on the evil nasty heartless rich business owner... and then we will see how well your theories play out...
Damn the people for trying to be successful... lets all relax and just have a check sent to the house... lol...

See, the issue here is that your logic holds but your basic premise - people are inherently lazy - is pretty poor.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-01-20 21:28:31

#106

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7020

I don't think people are inherently lazy... I just think hindering job creating businesses/owners... will create a nation of lazy people that find no reason to try and succeed... There are a lot of people in the US that think that rich, successful people are the bad guys/women... My hat is off to someone that can work harder than most people would be willing to... to make a business successful and create jobs and livings for many people and rewards for themselves...
and not have to give a lot of money to the govt which will waste the business owners money on poorly run programs...

I think the CEOs that still make money and bonuses even though they performed poorly and ran their company into the ground should be jailed also...

Love is the answer

2009-01-20 21:56:20

#107

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6884|the dank(super) side of Oregon

sounds like the boss doesn't know how to run his business very well.

2009-01-21 02:18:30

#108

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7061|Argentina

lowing wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
lowing wrote:

I am asking you to ponder the fact that it is real people that build businesses and make real sacrifices for their businesses to grow. I am asking you to ponder that, even if the letter is not true, that its contents is true. I want you to ponder how the entitlement administration is going to affect small businesses all over the country.
I see where you're coming from. Isn't it you the one thta's constantly lecturing about personal responsibilities, yet you are going to place the blame on a new administration the very same day it's taking the office.
I remember his campaign, I remember he is a liberal, thsat is why I said "IS GOING TO AFFECT" and not "what it has affected."

You are placing blame based on assumptions. Wrong. FFS give the guy some credit.

2009-01-21 04:04:36

#109

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

Sounds like the boss should stop whining about the govt and concentrate on running his business and motivating his employees.

Govt spending is a pretty high proportion of GDP, they need taxes to maintain it.

https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/spending-GDP.jpg

Fuck Israel

2009-01-21 05:05:24

#110

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

Harmor wrote:
I never got a job from a poor person.

shhhhhhhh, you will blow it for them.

They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.

There simply are no words to express how much I hate fuckin liberals.

2009-01-21 05:07:40

#111

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

sergeriver wrote:
lowing wrote:
sergeriver wrote:

I see where you're coming from. Isn't it you the one thta's constantly lecturing about personal responsibilities, yet you are going to place the blame on a new administration the very same day it's taking the office.
I remember his campaign, I remember he is a liberal, thsat is why I said "IS GOING TO AFFECT" and not "what it has affected."
You are placing blame based on assumptions. Wrong. FFS give the guy some credit.

I do give him credit, I credit him as the spawn of Jimmy Carter, the father of the pussification of America and the liberal apologist, peace at any price movement.

2009-01-21 05:12:58

#112

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7114|Nårvei

lowing wrote:
Harmor wrote:
I never got a job from a poor person.
shhhhhhhh, you will blow it for them.

They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.

There simply are no words to express how much I hate fuckin liberals.

Way to misread a message lowing

There is a difference between taxing a business and giving all the government money to the poor ... there is this thing called a balanced budget, it's quite interesting so you should read up on what it means because it's a vital part for any government to take care of all it's citizens and not just an elitist group of people ... if you find the middleground you have a winner ...

Until you figure it out you might as well just go kick a homeless guy in the nuts and laugh at him because you are such a better human being than he is ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-01-21 05:16:18

#113

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.

There's no middle ground for you, ever, is there?

Until you can grasp simple economic principals I don't think your in any position to criticise any of the posters here who do.

2009-01-21 05:22:04

#114

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I don't think people are inherently lazy... I just think hindering job creating businesses/owners... will create a nation of lazy people that find no reason to try and succeed... There are a lot of people in the US that think that rich, successful people are the bad guys/women... My hat is off to someone that can work harder than most people would be willing to... to make a business successful and create jobs and livings for many people and rewards for themselves...
and not have to give a lot of money to the govt which will waste the business owners money on poorly run programs...

I think the CEOs that still make money and bonuses even though they performed poorly and ran their company into the ground should be jailed also...

Sorry Cat, you had me until "I don't think people are inherently lazy". We are lazy, business owners find it very hard to find good reliable employees anymore.

We are a nation of entitlement, we expect our lives to be perfect with no effort needed on our parts, and when they are not, we have a list a mile long as to who we can blame. We can start with "The Man" ( of course), our parents, our neighborhood, our schools, our president, our boss ( if ya had one), our banks, all the way down to pre-civil rights traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic slavery syndrome. Hell even we even have figured out a way to blame some magical mental disease for all of our problems now, take your pick, are you ADD, ADHD. Your not an asshole or a bully, you have ADHD, PERFECT!! We can blame anyone except ourselves. It is great!! It does not end there either, the best part is, we have an army of ACLU lawyers in reserve to make sure we can pin our problems on someone other than ourselves, and make it LEGAL.

As is pointed out, we don't need a job, we need someone else to have one, and he better have a good one, because we got needs!!!!!!!!!

Gotta love liberals I tell ya.

2009-01-21 05:25:59

#115

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
Hell even we even have figured out a way to blame some magical mental disease for all of our problems now, take your pick, are you ADD, ADHD. Your not an asshole or a bully, you have ADHD, PERFECT!! We can blame anyone except ourselves. It is great!!

Are you suggesting that if I were to have ADD or ADHD that it would be my own fault?

I should take personal responsibility for having AD(H)D, how?

2009-01-21 05:26:47

#116

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.
There's no middle ground for you, ever, is there?

Until you can grasp simple economic principals I don't think your in any position to criticise any of the posters here who do.

Shall I go back and find the posts that suggest it is best to GIVE money away to the poor so they can go out and spend ( I can only assume rather than build a company to put the poor to work), that this is key to economic viability?

2009-01-21 05:29:21

#117

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Hell even we even have figured out a way to blame some magical mental disease for all of our problems now, take your pick, are you ADD, ADHD. Your not an asshole or a bully, you have ADHD, PERFECT!! We can blame anyone except ourselves. It is great!!
Are you suggesting that if I were to have ADD or ADHD that it would be my own fault?

I should take personal responsibility for having AD(H)D, how?

I guess ya missed the point, you can now legally be an asshole, we just call it ADHD, removing all blame for your action from you. Neat huh? When I was a kid, there were no such diseases, these were invented so lazy parents had an excuse as to why they raised fuckhead kids.

2009-01-21 05:29:36

#118

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
Shall I go back and find the posts that suggest it is best to GIVE money away to the poor so they can go out and spend ( I can only assume rather than build a company to put the poor to work), that this is key to economic viability?

No. It's the key to any stimulus package when you want to improve the countries economy. By generating an increase in consumer spending.

2009-01-21 05:32:54

#119

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
I guess ya missed the point, you can now legally be an asshole, we just call it ADHD, removing all blame for your action from you. Neat huh? When I was a kid, there were no such diseases, these were invented so lazy parents had an excuse as to why they raised fuckhead kids.

See now your associating everyone with ADHD to equaling assholes. You do know that these people are on medication, and have learning difficulties.

But hey, let's just brand them assholes because they have a medical problem. Show some sympathy, or what, did one of these people swear at you when you were growing up?

2009-01-21 05:38:24

#120

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
I guess ya missed the point, you can now legally be an asshole, we just call it ADHD, removing all blame for your action from you. Neat huh? When I was a kid, there were no such diseases, these were invented so lazy parents had an excuse as to why they raised fuckhead kids.
See now your associating everyone with ADHD to equaling assholes. You do know that these people are on medication, and have learning difficulties.

But hey, let's just brand them assholes because they have a medical problem. Show some sympathy, or what, did one of these people swear at you when you were growing up?

but hey!! why don't you address the post in its context.

2009-01-21 05:40:01

#121

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Shall I go back and find the posts that suggest it is best to GIVE money away to the poor so they can go out and spend ( I can only assume rather than build a company to put the poor to work), that this is key to economic viability?
No. It's the key to any stimulus package when you want to improve the countries economy. By generating an increase in consumer spending.

I agree, but you do this buy BUILDING companies, and put people to work not by throwing your profits out the fucking window and HOPE it makes it way back to you from the beer and lottery ticket companies

2009-01-21 05:43:29

#122

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Shall I go back and find the posts that suggest it is best to GIVE money away to the poor so they can go out and spend ( I can only assume rather than build a company to put the poor to work), that this is key to economic viability?
No. It's the key to any stimulus package when you want to improve the countries economy. By generating an increase in consumer spending.
I agree, but you do this buy BUILDING companies, and put people to work not by throwing your profits out the fucking window and HOPE it makes it way back to you from the beer and lottery ticket companies

lol

Because that's always where money given to the lower class goes, huh?

Beer and lotto. I'm surprised you didn't also say cigarettes and any other bad habits you could think of. I guess alcoholism and chronic gambling is to blame for the current financial stress of America.

You never cease to amaze.

2009-01-21 05:48:45

#123

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
TheAussieReaper wrote:

No. It's the key to any stimulus package when you want to improve the countries economy. By generating an increase in consumer spending.
I agree, but you do this buy BUILDING companies, and put people to work not by throwing your profits out the fucking window and HOPE it makes it way back to you from the beer and lottery ticket companies
lol

Because that's always where money given to the lower class goes, huh?

Beer and lotto. I'm surprised you didn't also say cigarettes and any other bad habits you could think of. I guess alcoholism and chronic gambling is to blame for the current financial stress of America.

You never cease to amaze.

I apologize, you are correct........................I forgot to add cigarettes, no the current finacial problem occured when people signed for loans they could not afford.

2009-01-21 05:52:58

#124

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

lowing wrote:
I apologize, you are correct........................I forgot to add cigarettes, no the current finacial problem occured when people signed for loans they could not afford.

So if they were given more money....

2009-01-21 06:01:10

#125

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
I apologize, you are correct........................I forgot to add cigarettes, no the current finacial problem occured when people signed for loans they could not afford.
So if they were given more money....

give give give, yes I must GIVE my hard earned money away, heavens for fuckin' bid, if anyone EARNED their money.

Notice how, as a liberal, earn is never in your vocabulary.

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Letter to Employees

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Letter to Employees

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

Harmor wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

Harmor wrote:

lowing wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer