1. Liberal thinking doesn't suggest that companies should employ people that don't deserve the job. Liberal thinking leads people to conclude that it is necessary to consider new, more effective ideas in creating a stable society. Liberal thinking has nothing to do with charity for all, but it has everything to do with caring for the weak and poor that are that way because of forces that they don't have any control over . For example, liberal thinking would suggest that Apple should build a factory here to support the poor blue collar workers that have no jobs due to forces outside of their control (govt. powers that send jobs overseas). That is liberal thinking. See you learn something everyday.
2. It's sad that conservatives - and I consider mysel one - have no idea what they talk about when they talk about "liberals". Educate yourself and stop making us look so bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife
It is that attitude which is why the West is in the mess it is. Liberal thinking that says a) Employ people, even if you do not need or cannot afford them. b) Loan people money for items or property they havn't a hope in hell of repaying.
Further down the road, the wheels then start to fall off. As is happening now as overpaid council staff (here in UK anyway) are sapping up money that could otherwise pay for actual services.
Apple can do what they like, they are a private company. All that matters is they are environmentally responsible & treat their workers well, not to mention, help in the community. Perhaps by funding a local bus service for the elderly or similar.
So a local is upset with Apple? Seems like he should talk to his state. The reason everyone resettles to poor states like NC in the SE is the states give away tax incentives (usually tax increment financing) to entice construction. This is a poor economic development tool as it only promotes construction jobs. Once they are gone, they are of no further use to the locals. The locals do not have the resources or education to do the jobs at the site. if you want effective use of tax money, educate the locals to do jobs like they have there. There is a reason these states are called Bubba states, they do not invest their tax dollars in the real currency of the state, their people. They just do big government give aways to large corporations, who usually contract with the big givers to the establishment. The irony is these fools are all Republican in that part of the country. So typical, rant and rave and do the opposite of what you preach.
I hate to fall on cliches, but if that town is anything like the one I lived in SW virginia for over seven years, most of the townsfolk wouldn't have the education or well-honed grey matter to take any of the 50 jobs available. In my town (grundy, if you must know), most hadn't finished high school and those who had, were taught at the local school which put them behind their peers who'd graduated elsewhere. Nearly 40% were on public assistance, a good number took drugs?oxycontin was the drug of choice?and they had an abysmal work ethic. For most of my time there, I fought the damning phrase "white trash" (I being a New Yorker), but after five years, I realised that's what they were?
The best image one can conjure up were Apple to hire the locals would be to imagine letting a stageful of Jerry Springer guests loose in the Viennese Staatsoper during Salome or Wagner.
Monkeys?matches?and dynamite?what could possibly go wrong
OK, so there's 50 net new jobs (assuming nobody somehow lost a job as a result of this.) What is the value of those jobs compared to the strain on tax-supported services impacting all residents? If someone can show that the actual concrete benefits (not mythical or "possible future benefits") outweigh the loss of tax revenue, then I'd say the issue is closed and we can all go home. Otherwise, you're just looking at one side of the equation.
The land we are talking about here was largely undeveloped thus very low tax income for the town. Now they are get about half the rate for commercial/industrial depending upon how the land gets rezoned.
I wouldn't be surprised to see local officials giving themselves a nice little pay raise in the near future. There will be much in the way of cash to go around.
Put your faith in SMALL biz, those are the ones that create MORE jobs.
Don't let Republicans fool you with their Job creators-billionaires.
On the other hand most bankers are democrats. Not that that really makes any difference because much of the banking industry woes these days was created by bipartisan action at the federal level.
OK, so there's 50 net new jobs (assuming nobody somehow lost a job as a result of this.) What is the value of those jobs compared to the strain on tax-supported services impacting all residents? If someone can show that the actual concrete benefits (not mythical or "possible future benefits") outweigh the loss of tax revenue, then I'd say the issue is closed and we can all go home. Otherwise, you're just looking at one side of the equation.
what loss of tax revenue? Apple paid no taxes before in that town before they bought the land and built the server farm. They massively increased the value of the land they bought. What was just low priced land is now a $1 billion data center.
There are the 50 full time jobs to support the data center
There were the countless construction jobs to build it
There are more potential construction jobs to build the rumored 2nd phase that doubles the size
There are more potential construction jobs to build the solar farm to power the data center.
All in a town of just 3400 people.
And why do people keep talking like the property tax breaks applied to everyone? I'd be quite surprised if they apply to anyone in that town except Apple. So the town isn't losing revenue from anyone else, and are simply getting a lower percentage of revenue from property that is worth a heck of a lot more than it was before this all started. And that tax breaks will eventually expire.
I don't see at all how Apple hurt the town by moving there, but certainly see ways it's has helped and will continue to help the town by being there. The alternative was to tell Apple no and have Apple go find some other town who would give them tax breaks to bring in new investments and jobs.
However, start by realizing that in a city of 3400, not all of them are working. If the total population was 3400, then probably only 1,000 to 1500 are working. If it really was 3400 adults, then probably only 2,000 are working. That makes the percentage higher.
Furthermore, Apple stated that 50 direct employees would be hired, but another 250 in contract services (presumably landscaping, security, janitorial, etc). 300 new jobs in a city where 1,000 to 2,000 people are working is a LOT.
Obviously, but that's too simplistic for some people.
Actually, I don't think that's fair at all. It means that the people who can least afford it are most heavily burdened as a percentage of their income. To me, a fair tax would be:
How is paying your fair share a burden? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. One of the biggest problems this country has right now is giving a free ride to people that don't want to work or are too stupid to be employable at a competitive rate. It is a sicken example of the nanny state mentality. There is no reason to give such examples of humanity a free ride at the expense of people that get up every morning and go to work.
Quote:
- No deductions at all
Well that I agree with!
Quote:
- First $50,000 of income exempted
This however is bull crap and I'm totally against it. If anything the lazy and stupid should be taxed at a higher rate. I mean this seriously, if you are a drag on the economy and a burden to other tax payers you need to suffer.
Quote:
- Next $200,000 of income taxed at 10%.
This also makes no sense at all. Besides history has shown that taxing high income earners excessively is a huge drag on the economy.
Quote:
- Remainder taxed at 20% (or whatever it takes to balance things out)
See the above it is a stupid concept.
Quote:
- Capital gains taxed at normal income tax rates, but indexed for inflation
Again totally stupid, intact I'd eliminate all capital gain taxes. The problem is they do more harm than good and very negatively impact the lower income workers.
Quote:
Before going bonkers, realize that very few people earning under $50 K pay any taxes under the current system (some actually get money back even if they don't pay taxes).
Yeah that is a huge problem and must be addressed. Everyone should be paying their fair share, that can only be accomplished with a flat rate tax. We need to give theses idiots a little incentive to work harder.
Actually, I don't think that's fair at all. It means that the people who can least afford it are most heavily burdened as a percentage of their income. To me, a fair tax would be:
- No deductions at all
- First $50,000 of income exempted
- Next $200,000 of income taxed at 10%.
- Remainder taxed at 20% (or whatever it takes to balance things out)
- Capital gains taxed at normal income tax rates, but indexed for inflation
Before going bonkers, realize that very few people earning under $50 K pay any taxes under the current system (some actually get money back even if they don't pay taxes).
Dude... The fair tax is an actual thing. Google it. It isn't "my fair tax" or "what I think a fair tax is...". There is one "fair tax". And FYI- it does have exemptions for income and takes it one better- they get money at the end of year.
Again- read it and tell me it's not the best way. Hardly anyone disagrees that looks at it- rich, poor, democrat, or republican.
Edited to say: drug dealers, prostitutes, and illegals also dont like it.
On the other hand most bankers are democrats. Not that that really makes any difference because much of the banking industry woes these days was created by bipartisan action at the federal level.
Documentary of the year last year- inside job. Highly recommend it if you want to see how screwed we are and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Dude... The fair tax is an actual thing. Google it. It isn't "my fair tax" or "what I think a fair tax is...". There is one "fair tax". And FYI- it does have exemptions for income and takes it one better- they get money at the end of year.
Again- read it and tell me it's not the best way. Hardly anyone disagrees that looks at it- rich, poor, democrat, or republican.
While I personally agree with the Fair Tax, you must either live in a very insular world, or else be a very domineering person (IE intimidating those you talk to into "agreeing" with you just to shut you up about something you're passionate about) if you think "hardly anyone" disagrees with it.
In my experience only a very small number of people think it's a good thing, the rest have a knee jerk reaction of agony. Those who tend to lean libertarian and/or have a background in economics (IE us heartless academics) tend to love it. Then again maybe I'm just letting my friends and family talk more than I should, and allowing them to express their opinions.
While I personally agree with the Fair Tax, you must either live in a very insular world, or else be a very domineering person (IE intimidating those you talk to into "agreeing" with you just to shut you up about something you're passionate about) if you think "hardly anyone" disagrees with it.
In my experience only a very small number of people think it's a good thing, the rest have a knee jerk reaction of agony. Those who tend to lean libertarian and/or have a background in economics (IE us heartless academics) tend to love it. Then again maybe I'm just letting my friends and family talk more than I should, and allowing them to express their opinions.
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest). . I'm sheltered.
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest). . I'm sheltered.
Sounds about right. You have to know your audience.
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest). . I'm sheltered.
Cormac McCarthy told me, "Caint figure why a fruit company would put its friend Siri in such a big box. Don't make no sense talkin bout a cloud in there too. Gotta think bout this one. With my horse...."
Comments
2. It's sad that conservatives - and I consider mysel one - have no idea what they talk about when they talk about "liberals". Educate yourself and stop making us look so bad.
It is that attitude which is why the West is in the mess it is. Liberal thinking that says a) Employ people, even if you do not need or cannot afford them. b) Loan people money for items or property they havn't a hope in hell of repaying.
Further down the road, the wheels then start to fall off. As is happening now as overpaid council staff (here in UK anyway) are sapping up money that could otherwise pay for actual services.
Apple can do what they like, they are a private company. All that matters is they are environmentally responsible & treat their workers well, not to mention, help in the community. Perhaps by funding a local bus service for the elderly or similar.
Sex is not the Answer!
Sex is the Question.
...The Answer is Yes!
Came across this yesterday: http://www.onelinerz.net/top-100-funny-one-liners/
What are you saying? Esus was an Ew?
In Mexican Spanish the nickname for Jesus is Chui... Pronounced chewy.
Jejeje
Maybe Apple could start making the furniture for the Apple Stores at that site. At least the locals would have those skills one would think.
Once you become a person that believes you should be given a job you aren't worth hiring.
The best image one can conjure up were Apple to hire the locals would be to imagine letting a stageful of Jerry Springer guests loose in the Viennese Staatsoper during Salome or Wagner.
Monkeys?matches?and dynamite?what could possibly go wrong
OK, so there's 50 net new jobs (assuming nobody somehow lost a job as a result of this.) What is the value of those jobs compared to the strain on tax-supported services impacting all residents? If someone can show that the actual concrete benefits (not mythical or "possible future benefits") outweigh the loss of tax revenue, then I'd say the issue is closed and we can all go home. Otherwise, you're just looking at one side of the equation.
The land we are talking about here was largely undeveloped thus very low tax income for the town. Now they are get about half the rate for commercial/industrial depending upon how the land gets rezoned.
I wouldn't be surprised to see local officials giving themselves a nice little pay raise in the near future. There will be much in the way of cash to go around.
Came across this yesterday: http://www.onelinerz.net/top-100-funny-one-liners/
During the Clinton administration, Macy's had a Presidents' Day Sale -- All Mens' Tuousers, 1/2 Off!
Everyone knows you can get AIDS from sex... President Clinton proved that you can get sex from aides.
Put your faith in SMALL biz, those are the ones that create MORE jobs.
Don't let Republicans fool you with their Job creators-billionaires.
On the other hand most bankers are democrats. Not that that really makes any difference because much of the banking industry woes these days was created by bipartisan action at the federal level.
During the Clinton administration, Macy's had a Presidents' Day Sale -- All Mens' Tuousers, 1/2 Off!
Everyone knows you can get AIDS from sex... President Clinton proved that you can get sex from aides.
Those are really dated. I was still in HS when Clinton took office though out of college by the time he took Lewinsky.
OK, so there's 50 net new jobs (assuming nobody somehow lost a job as a result of this.) What is the value of those jobs compared to the strain on tax-supported services impacting all residents? If someone can show that the actual concrete benefits (not mythical or "possible future benefits") outweigh the loss of tax revenue, then I'd say the issue is closed and we can all go home. Otherwise, you're just looking at one side of the equation.
what loss of tax revenue? Apple paid no taxes before in that town before they bought the land and built the server farm. They massively increased the value of the land they bought. What was just low priced land is now a $1 billion data center.
There are the 50 full time jobs to support the data center
There were the countless construction jobs to build it
There are more potential construction jobs to build the rumored 2nd phase that doubles the size
There are more potential construction jobs to build the solar farm to power the data center.
All in a town of just 3400 people.
And why do people keep talking like the property tax breaks applied to everyone? I'd be quite surprised if they apply to anyone in that town except Apple. So the town isn't losing revenue from anyone else, and are simply getting a lower percentage of revenue from property that is worth a heck of a lot more than it was before this all started. And that tax breaks will eventually expire.
I don't see at all how Apple hurt the town by moving there, but certainly see ways it's has helped and will continue to help the town by being there. The alternative was to tell Apple no and have Apple go find some other town who would give them tax breaks to bring in new investments and jobs.
Those are really dated. I was still in HS when Clinton took office though out of college by the time he took Lewinsky.
Well... To be honest, we have about 15,000 songs/audio files on iCloud iTunes match.
Earlier, I was playing with Siri, and I asked her:
"Siri play jokes"
Siri came back with a series of Garrison Keillor audio clips... Those were among them...
Maybe we should just tell the punch lines, like:
"nobody can eat that much ice cream!"
Yes, let's do the math.
However, start by realizing that in a city of 3400, not all of them are working. If the total population was 3400, then probably only 1,000 to 1500 are working. If it really was 3400 adults, then probably only 2,000 are working. That makes the percentage higher.
Furthermore, Apple stated that 50 direct employees would be hired, but another 250 in contract services (presumably landscaping, security, janitorial, etc). 300 new jobs in a city where 1,000 to 2,000 people are working is a LOT.
Obviously, but that's too simplistic for some people.
Actually, I don't think that's fair at all. It means that the people who can least afford it are most heavily burdened as a percentage of their income. To me, a fair tax would be:
How is paying your fair share a burden? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. One of the biggest problems this country has right now is giving a free ride to people that don't want to work or are too stupid to be employable at a competitive rate. It is a sicken example of the nanny state mentality. There is no reason to give such examples of humanity a free ride at the expense of people that get up every morning and go to work.
- No deductions at all
Well that I agree with!
- First $50,000 of income exempted
This however is bull crap and I'm totally against it. If anything the lazy and stupid should be taxed at a higher rate. I mean this seriously, if you are a drag on the economy and a burden to other tax payers you need to suffer.
- Next $200,000 of income taxed at 10%.
This also makes no sense at all. Besides history has shown that taxing high income earners excessively is a huge drag on the economy.
- Remainder taxed at 20% (or whatever it takes to balance things out)
See the above it is a stupid concept.
- Capital gains taxed at normal income tax rates, but indexed for inflation
Again totally stupid, intact I'd eliminate all capital gain taxes. The problem is they do more harm than good and very negatively impact the lower income workers.
Before going bonkers, realize that very few people earning under $50 K pay any taxes under the current system (some actually get money back even if they don't pay taxes).
Yeah that is a huge problem and must be addressed. Everyone should be paying their fair share, that can only be accomplished with a flat rate tax. We need to give theses idiots a little incentive to work harder.
Actually, I don't think that's fair at all. It means that the people who can least afford it are most heavily burdened as a percentage of their income. To me, a fair tax would be:
- No deductions at all
- First $50,000 of income exempted
- Next $200,000 of income taxed at 10%.
- Remainder taxed at 20% (or whatever it takes to balance things out)
- Capital gains taxed at normal income tax rates, but indexed for inflation
Before going bonkers, realize that very few people earning under $50 K pay any taxes under the current system (some actually get money back even if they don't pay taxes).
Dude... The fair tax is an actual thing. Google it. It isn't "my fair tax" or "what I think a fair tax is...". There is one "fair tax". And FYI- it does have exemptions for income and takes it one better- they get money at the end of year.
Again- read it and tell me it's not the best way. Hardly anyone disagrees that looks at it- rich, poor, democrat, or republican.
Edited to say: drug dealers, prostitutes, and illegals also dont like it.
On the other hand most bankers are democrats. Not that that really makes any difference because much of the banking industry woes these days was created by bipartisan action at the federal level.
Documentary of the year last year- inside job. Highly recommend it if you want to see how screwed we are and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Dude... The fair tax is an actual thing. Google it. It isn't "my fair tax" or "what I think a fair tax is...". There is one "fair tax". And FYI- it does have exemptions for income and takes it one better- they get money at the end of year.
Again- read it and tell me it's not the best way. Hardly anyone disagrees that looks at it- rich, poor, democrat, or republican.
While I personally agree with the Fair Tax, you must either live in a very insular world, or else be a very domineering person (IE intimidating those you talk to into "agreeing" with you just to shut you up about something you're passionate about) if you think "hardly anyone" disagrees with it.
In my experience only a very small number of people think it's a good thing, the rest have a knee jerk reaction of agony. Those who tend to lean libertarian and/or have a background in economics (IE us heartless academics) tend to love it. Then again maybe I'm just letting my friends and family talk more than I should, and allowing them to express their opinions.
While I personally agree with the Fair Tax, you must either live in a very insular world, or else be a very domineering person (IE intimidating those you talk to into "agreeing" with you just to shut you up about something you're passionate about) if you think "hardly anyone" disagrees with it.
In my experience only a very small number of people think it's a good thing, the rest have a knee jerk reaction of agony. Those who tend to lean libertarian and/or have a background in economics (IE us heartless academics) tend to love it. Then again maybe I'm just letting my friends and family talk more than I should, and allowing them to express their opinions.
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest).
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest).
Sounds about right. You have to know your audience.
You let your friends and family talk? What's wrong with you?
Maybe I just live in Collin county and only associate with white suburbanites in the most republican/libertarian county in all of Texas (also the richest).
Lamborhghini Gallardo or Bugatti Veyron?