What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

LogGrad98 said:
Utah, guaranteed would be 70% republican at least. Maybe 20% democrat and a solid 10% "other". Give or take 5% in any direction on those.

Texas I think would be more balanced, still 60% republican easy.

Florida would be more balanced as well, I think, maybe like Texas.
Click to expand...

It might be wishful thinking, but I'm more optimistic. I think Florida and Texas flip and in Utah we go 60-40 ballpark.
 
Safetydan said:
Any amount of revenue you put back into your business is not taxed. If you pay your people, re-invest in R&D you don't pay taxes on that amount. Taxes only cuts into net-income after expenses. ???
Click to expand...
Correct. This is our net income. Which next year we will be using for expansion into 2 new home services industries: purchasing accounts and new rep growth.
Safetydan said:
Edit: I'm an accountant, I'm not saying you're wrong with your numbers. I'm just going off of the information in your post. I will say that business owners love to pretend that corporate taxes hurt their ability to hire and pay employees when in reality due to the order in which things are calculated, the taxes you pay has nothing to do with the employees you're able to hire and pay.
Click to expand...
The decrease in taxes, increases our net income, which we can use to our discretion. We use it on tech improvements, without sacrificing our funds that we plan to expand with. I know you will say we can do it a different way through debt and save on taxes.
Safetydan said:
Trumps Tax cuts for the working class are scheduled to expire (and they're ****ing miniscule comparatively), the tax cuts for the rich are permanent. That's kinda ****ed.
Click to expand...
It is, Biden should do something about it.
Safetydan said:
Workers, the vast majority of americans, don't need tax cuts, they need more income.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that is why we built our business, we saw what is happening to the employees who helped build these large businesses and got nothing out of it. If people realize to not be greedy and see the big picture that paying people well, there will be more money for you in the long run.
 
Bucknutz said:
Correct. This is our net income. Which next year we will be using for expansion into 2 new home services industries: purchasing accounts and new rep growth.

The decrease in taxes, increases our net income, which we can use to our discretion. We use it on tech improvements, without sacrificing our funds that we plan to expand with. I know you will say we can do it a different way through debt and save on taxes.

It is, Biden should do something about it.

Agreed, that is why we built our business, we saw what is happening to the employees who helped build these large businesses and got nothing out of it. If people realize to not be greedy and see the big picture that paying people well, there will be more money for you in the long run.
Click to expand...
Good on you for paying your guys. I'll go and work for you now I think.

Not directed @Bucknutz: Unfortunately, on a systemic level, relying on the benevolence of owners to pay their people fairly is never going to work. The opposing interests of both classes and all of the power concentrated in one side is a wave that will only ever go in one direction.
 
Bucknutz said:
The decrease in taxes, increases our net income, which we can use to our discretion. We use it on tech improvements, without sacrificing our funds that we plan to expand with. I know you will say we can do it a different way through debt and save on taxes.
Click to expand...

Hard to say without getting access to your financials, but there has to be a way to avoid getting taxed on the resources you use for re-investment. If your re-investment results in more income down the road, directly or indirectly you could argue that you're getting double-taxed..
 
Bucknutz said:
Agreed, that is why we built our business, we saw what is happening to the employees who helped build these large businesses and got nothing out of it. If people realize to not be greedy and see the big picture that paying people well, there will be more money for you in the long run.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we now have well in to 5 decades of evidence this does not work this way. Companies are hoarders. Without legislation, and the resulting wage pressure across industries, none of them would have raised their minimum wages. They would happily be offering $6.50 an hour as base with people forced to accept since there is no other game in town especially for entry-level. One bigger problem is that tenured employees' wages have been even worse, trending negative to cost of living for the past 40 years, since even if you forcibly raise entry level wages with a minimum wage bumps, that does nothing to incentivize companies to pay established employees more. In my industry the biggest driver of wage growth has been amazon, followed closely by Walmart, in a distribution setting. They can afford to pay people more, and, especially in places where we have low supply of qualified workers, the wages have risen substantially due to amazon and Walmart throwing all kinds of incentives at their employees. It still does not get people into living wage territory but it is a damn sight better than the status quo. In California where I have spent the past 7 years of my career we saw the increased minimum wage as a substantial barrier financially. Of course it realistically meant lower margins, not losses by any stretch, but still, $15 per hour seemed unworkable. Until amazon came in that first holiday season with $21 per hour to start (forklift driver positions primarily), and suddenly the race was on. We hit the $15 threshold a full 2 years early and were all at around $18-$21 per hour by the time the $15 per hour standard hit. Of course by then amazon was at $23-25. And the upward pressure now continues. Of course in California this still is not a true living wage, but it is WAY better, even inflation adjusted, to where it was 6, 8 or even 10-15 years ago. Fact is, unless you see something like an hourly worker shortage there is just no incentive at all for companies to increase wages. People still need jobs, they will take what they can get, and companies know this and exploit it.
 
Safetydan said:
Good on you for paying your guys. I'll go and work for you now I think.

Not directed @Bucknutz: Unfortunately, on a systemic level, relying on the benevolence of owners to pay their people fairly is never going to work. The opposing interests of both classes and all of the power concentrated in one side is a wave that will only ever go in one direction.
Click to expand...
Eh, I said what you said but with more words and more name-dropping. So you don't get as many points. 87 out of 100.
 
Safetydan said:
Good on you for paying your guys. I'll go and work for you now I think.

Not directed @Bucknutz: Unfortunately, on a systemic level, relying on the benevolence of owners to pay their people fairly is never going to work. The opposing interests of both classes and all of the power concentrated in one side is a wave that will only ever go in one direction.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this, this is the biggest reason I have a business because I see the need. We are still not big with a round 200 sales a month. When I look at companies that have 1000-30,000 sales a month I just sit there in awe on how much money is flowing in those doors.

I will tell you we are ruthless when it comes to low skill jobs. The progress in AI that we are using will make us an extremely lean company in operations and backend. The positive that comes from this is our people will always be paid well.
 
Safetydan said:
Hard to say without getting access to your financials, but there has to be a way to avoid getting taxed on the resources you use for re-investment. If your re-investment results in more income down the road, directly or indirectly you could argue that you're getting double-taxed..
Click to expand...
It will come in the future. We will be spending more then we take in next year.
 
Bucknutz said:
I’ll break it down to you.
1. Important opportunity for the Republicans right now
2. Selecting the worst candidate on the right.
Click to expand...
See, I fixed it for you. Republicans had golden opportunity to win the president election had they selected anybody but Trump ( maybe not Greene too, that cave women even dumber than Trump). Yet they picked the worst, most repulsive candidate ever and are doomed.
 
MVP said:
See, I fixed it for you. Republicans had golden opportunity to win the president election had they selected anybody but Trump ( maybe not Greene too, that cave women even dumber than Trump). Yet they picked the worst, most repulsive candidate ever and are doomed.
Click to expand...
Yep, agreed!

Except that I believe that Trump has an advantage over Kamala.
 
Bucknutz said:
The opportunity that the Democrats have right now, to select the best option for President, is so damn important and they go with the worst option.

I don’t like her because she has no accomplishments, limited experience..
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree with that. She has plenty of accomplishments and is far from the worst.

She was a key part of most major decisions during the the last very successful 4 years. USA is booming and she was one of the main people propping Biden up. She was next to him advising on almost every major decision. Besides that she was a very active senator before. She also set the record for most tie breaking votes from a VP in USA history. There are plenty of other things she accomplished.

She isn't perfect but no one will be. She isn't my first choice but she's a very solid choice. The opposition propaganda is also way too strong to let anyone like a candidate as well.

So you only want a career politician candidate that's been in the system a long time?

Also aren't you voting RFK jr? Besides his very harmful anti vaccine, other crazy conspiracies, and heroin use he has 0 experience. Far less than Harris.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Strongly disagree with that. She has plenty of accomplishments and is far from the worst.

She was a key part of most major decisions during the the last very successful 4 years. USA is booming and she was one of the main people propping Biden up. She was next to him advising on almost every major decision. Besides that she was a very active senator before. She also set the record for most tie breaking votes from a VP in USA history. There are plenty of other things she accomplished.

She isn't perfect but no one will be. She isn't my first choice but she's a very solid choice. The opposition propaganda is also way too strong to let anyone like a candidate as well.

So you only want a career politician candidate that's been in the system a long time?

Also aren't you voting RFK jr? Besides his very harmful anti vaccine, other crazy conspiracies, and heroin use he has 0 experience. Far less than Harris.
Click to expand...
Again,final time, I’ll explain my view.

1. I’m not for Trump
2. I’m advocating for a better option for the Democratic nominee.
3. I don’t believe Kamala has what it takes to beat Trump.
4. I don’t care who is POTUS is. I’m rooting for a slit congress.

Never Trump was strong 4 years ago. I don’t believe it has enough energy this cycle and if that is why most people are voting for her on this politics forum, you think average people with little enthusiasm for politics are going to rush out to an uninspiring candidate with limited personalty?

Democrats have a real opportunity right now and I believe they are wasting on Kamala.

Yeah, I will vote for RFK over Kamala and Trump. If I had a conversation with these 3 candidates, I would get an actual real conversation out of him, with depth in many topics. Same with Pete. I won’t get that with the others.

Yeah I will take her:

View: https://x.com/itismarkharris/status/1808528833118707819?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/jacobyusufov/status/1506016689154146306?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/mayoralpodcast/status/1796160610410897425?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/beinlibertarian/status/1808222023291662359?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ



View: https://x.com/joshua__dm/status/1636507678997467137?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


She is so inspiring!

Again, the only reason the left are trying to promote her is because their overlords choose her. Since the left is an ideological cult, the left now has to defend her at all costs. I wouldn’t be saying these things if it was a better candidate.
 
MVP said:
What kind of advantage? Education? Honesty? Age? Respect? Intelligence? Health? I only see advantage for Kamala anywhere I look?
Click to expand...
There is a reason she has the lowest approval rate among democrats. There is a reason she is polling lower than Trump, nationally and in states.
She is lacking inspiration , persuasiveness and personality. I keep saying this.

Basic question here:

Would you rather have Pete or Kamala to lead your business of Government? Who would inspire you as leader more Pete or Kamala?

I keep hearing Kamala isn’t my first choice but…
But what? If she is not the democrats first choice, why would it be for independents, cross overs or conservative liberals? Just because she is the Democrats nominee everyone will just get behind her?
 
Safetydan said:
Trumps Tax cuts for the working class are scheduled to expire (and they're ****ing miniscule comparatively), the tax cuts for the rich are permanent. That's kinda ****ed.

Workers, the vast majority of americans, don't need tax cuts, they need more income.
Click to expand...

This

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top