This from CNBC [ROFL1]:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-wo...131640914.html
enjoy
it's long but is well put
Printable View
This from CNBC [ROFL1]:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-wo...131640914.html
enjoy
it's long but is well put
I like the idea because it is the truth.
If we the people allow the government to interfere with businesses to such a degree that businesses have to shut down then we the people are getting exactly what we deserve.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this; whatever.
When you own a company, you decide how much you can afford to pay yourself from its profits. This guy is paying himself enough that he "has enough money for the rest of [his] life and enough to leave a good inheritance for [his] kids," has paid off his debts, including the note on the "largest new house in America," in which he is currently installing new elevators and marble, all of which he refers to as cutting back and being "lean and mean," but his poor, struggling little company will have to lay people off if he has to pay taxes, rather than reduce his salary or his profit margins. Is that the gist of it?
Fvck him. He's a scumbag.
I wonder if John Galt has talked to him yet?
Why shouldn't he pay himself first, isn't that reaping what he's sown?
He's provided opportunities for his emplyees, he's not obligated to take continue care of them.
It's fine to ride along on someone good fortune (being employed by them) but one should not expect more than the opportunity to work for them.
Let go of the shirtails and make your own success.
He never says his company is "struggling."Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Why is it that people whom produce a job for others are seen as scumbags? It goes back that mentality that says, "you didn't build that." Take a little time out of your life and read Atlas Shrugged, you will see that what is going on in this country is what is "fvck" up. It's not about not having enough to pay the extra taxes, is about being a slave to those that do not earn the money they get. Fuck them, I might go on strike too.
Took me a little time to write mine so you beat me to it. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by SAnd
I think it's a scumbag move because he's going to fire these people tomorrow on the possibility that something might impact his business in the next 4 years.
It's bullshit fearmongering tactics that have no basis in our current reality.
Not everyone can own their own company. Capitalism will not work if there are only employers and no employees. But screw them, I guess. Let them eat cake.
Not everyone has what it takes to own their own company. Employees will never understand this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
As an employer, when Obamacare went through I let all 5 guys working for me go. I cannot and will not pay the insurance costs that are coming down the pipe. I prefer to work alone and use contractors for everything rather than have even a single employee.
I wrote a lot out, but fuck it- bottom line is if you have a job, YOU VOLUNTEERED AND AGREED to the salary etc. and knew what you were getting into. Why is it so many people think their company- the rich fat bastards enjoying the fruits of their success and the rewards of taking the risk to go into business- are screwing them when YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS WHEN HIRED!!!! Why is there are so many employees now who think they "deserve" more when they agreed to do X work for X dollars or chickens or car parts or hookers per week, month, whatever? What happened to being grateful you have a job, doing the best you can at it, taking pride in your work and having a little loyalty to the company that provides you with the opportunity? What happened to "company men"?
Obviously never invested in a business of your own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
I have multiple ventures at the moment - and I agree with this guy. In one case, we will be forced to fire everyone and rehire them as independent contractors.
Many folks don't get it, as business owners, we try to project income/spending as far ahead as possible. If there is an impending risk that is beyond our control, we may decided to pull the plug early to save our investment.
If the business owner is set for life, why would he risk his money to maintain 'jobs' for you while taking all the risk??? Once the risk hit hit the point to outweigh the growth potential, most would rather pull their money and reinvest it else where.
Oh yes we do understand this. Some people just do not want that hassle, especially if there are employees involved.Quote:
Not everyone has what it takes to own their own company. Employees will never understand this.
What happened is the lack of any return for loyalty. Being on the lookout for another job that pays better, is closer, is better in some way is smart. In the same way it is smart for the employer to think through 'well I can hire 3 chinese for the cost of 1 engineer here' and poof there goes your job.Quote:
What happened to being grateful you have a job, doing the best you can at it, taking pride in your work and having a little loyalty to the company that provides you with the opportunity? What happened to "company men"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
FIFY
AND-
No return for loyalty? You get a paycheck when its time to get paid right? Theres your return. You honored your agreement and the employer honored his. Now if for some reason everytime your employer hears about you its that your supervisor saw you on jobs.com.net.tv, or that you had three or four opportunities to pitch in a little extra time, maybe work on something at home or come in on a Saturday, and you didnt and it cost the company time and money, or that owner observes you being consistently (I say consistently because everyone has off days) moody or unhappy and you do and say nothing to explain or improve, then obviously no bonus for you.
HOWEVER, most employers do have bonus plans and every employer I know of would welcome and support actual bonus plan to reward employees for putting in extra effort. What NONE will support is a bonus plan for just doing your damned job. And why should they?
EDIT- My wife is considering several job opportunities in Hong Kong, where she can make a fair amount more money than she does here. However, a TYPICAL workday over there for a manager or even junior executive is 12 to 14 hours. They get work done. She has worked over there before with a previous employer and while the pace is to her I think exciting for the first week, by the second week she was not thrilled about it. However thats just normal doing business. AND these are the executives, you know, the "fat bastards" cruising around in thier limos and partying all night.
You obviously have no clue- the executives and owners NEVER STOP WORKING. Yeah they might be at home, but they are still working on this project or that proposal or setting up this meeting. I leave my shop and spend another three hours usually on the computer doing billing, research, etc. It never ends. There is no overtime, there may not even be an office party at the end of a long project, but its work and it has to get done for the company to succeed. Silly I know, to work that hard to ensure the employees have jobs.
An hourly employee on the other hand finishes their 8 hour shift with an hour lunch and two GOVERNMENT MANDATED 30 minute breaks, clocks out, and goes home to sit on thier couch and complain about how bad they have it because they have to work 8 hours a day for shitty pay for those fat bastards living it up with all their money.
Who, exactly, needs a reality check?
No doubt! Why bother risking my retirement on guys who will leave you once better opportunities arise? You pay the good guys in order for your business to compete in the market - Nothing else. Noone in his/her right mind is in the for profit business only for the good sake of hiring others. Your time and sweat earns the bucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by merl
That's exactly the point. You can't be thankful for a job you don't have because some fat bastard couldn't bear to not put a new elevator in his mansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalker460
I have a tendency to let my anger force hyperbole in my posts; I need to try to hold that back until I've calmed. Let me rephrase with less emotion: I don't think he should be required, by any means, to retain his workers. I think he displays enormous lack of character to collect a lavish salary from his company's coffers, the state of which, he implies, will force him to lay people off if his taxes increase. If he has the means to keep his company in the black and not lay anyone off, good ethics would suggest he should. If he would prefer to put people out of work in order to maintain his own salary, while that is his prerogative, it displays a lack of moral fiber.
I think a good leader is one who is willing to put his subordinates before himself. The opposite seems to be true in order to be financially successful.
^^ fantasy. If you were in his position, you will maintain your style of living, your gun collection, or happiness of your children over your employees. [Weight]
I think you and your family can continue to be happy without getting a marble encrusted biggest house currently being built in the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
I blame the unions for sure.
I agree, but it's my money to decide whether I want to have the biggest marble encrusted house in the nation or to risk it on a business. Welcome to the free world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Be honest, would you sacrifice your gun collection, pull your kids off a good university, sell your car, or open your home to a family member who is in need until he/she can pay you back plus interest. She/He promises you much return in interest, even promises to pay for your kids graduate school in the future as long as you can use their college fund on her/him today. Would you trust your own family member to risk your style of living and livelihood?
Most Americans won't even take the risk of helping their own siblings/family members.
I have when I was able, taken in and helped out my family and friends, and I've never expected a thing in return. You may be right that most Americans would not. Such is the sad state of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
BUT if you had to sell all your guns, sell your car and take the bus to work, sell your investment property that was your retirement plan, take out loans against your house that put you steeply at risk and meant that your kids college funds dried up, and have a negative balance on your bank account every month if you paid your bills on time, would you do that?
I have had a business fail, and I did everything to save it while making sure my employees got paid. I sold all but one of my guns, I sold everything I had that was not absolutely necessary to survive, went deep into debt, and the business still failed, but the employees never missed a check. They made money while I was suffering, and they were pissed at me when I had to close the doors.
Until you have some skin in the game, dont bitch about the people who do.
That was some ninja editing, teufelfund! [Coffee]
I removed that part from my post before you replied because I thought about it and realized I did have to cut back my lifestyle to help others.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalker460
We're not talking about the small business owner who is scraping to make ends meet. We're talking about a millionaire who, by his own admission, already has enough money to last the rest of his life, and is going to lay people off rather than make a reduction in his luxurious lifestyle, regardless of the fact his company is in the black.
Your sacrifice speaks highly of your character, though I never said one should let the business fail before making cuts.
Leif, will you change my handle since no one can spell or pronounce it? [Flower]
I think I see why you two disagree, not everything should be construed as a profit opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
I also lost a business and sacrificed much in a vain attempt to keep it going but my employees didn't make that decision regardless of how altruistic my thought process, I did.
There is no difference between a small business and a large one. Large business fail just like small ones. The bigger the business, the higher the overhead and the more each tiny thing matters. Sure, 2% increase doesnt sound like much, until you apply that over 2000 employees making an average of 65K a year, then it fucking hurts. Add in the additional costs of having to hire someone in to implement and manage the application and enforcement of the program, the attorney fees paid to review each and every item pertaining to it and soon your profitable business is running at a loss.
So WHAT if he has done well and does not want to risk losing what he has?? Do you not understand how money works? Having it is good. Keeping it is hard. Giving it away to the government because of some dumbass program is bad, mmmkay?? Adding ANY cost to doing business DOES NOTHING but make the decision to close doors easier. It does not create jobs, it does not add taxes (hard to tax a business thats closed) and just adds a drain on the economy because even if these people live off thier savings they will no longer buy higher end goods, which hurts other businesses. Its called the economy, and its not that hard to understand.
Agreed ^^
I always want to pronounce it tele-fun-hound[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
what's it mean and how do you pronounce?
pronounced too- fool- hund - Its German :)
I think it means big dog but Im too lazy to google it
"toy'-full-hoond", "devil-dog", in German. I suspect a link to the USMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Don't forget that increase in labor cost translates to higher retail price which then may drive more consumers to buy other cheaper chicom products. Then to compete, we are forced to move the operation/production activity to India/China... So what drives outsourcing again?
Kinda curious where in the timeline you expect the costs to go up, and why you added to the unemployed ranks before that happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalker460
http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hc_timeline.pdf
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
A brief etymology and German lesson:
Teufelhund, pronounced (Toyful-hoont), is Devil Dog in German. It is a nickname Marines use for each other, originating from the Battle of Belleau Wood, in which the Marines attacked and drove back a numerically superior German force with such ferocity the Germans referred to the attacking Marines as Teufelshunde, or Hounds of Hell.
Teufel = Devil
Hund = Dog
Similar to English, when forming a compound noun in German, the two words are combined. (e.g. toothpaste).
The plural of Hund is Hunde. When combining plural nouns in German, a connecting "s" is used. Devil Dogs in German is Teufelshunde (pronounced Toyfuls-hoont-eh). Yes, the Marines have been saying it wrong for years; they say it is Teufel Hunden (and they pronounce it Tooful-Hun-den). The "en" suffix is only applied in the conjugation of verbs; it is not used with nouns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Lol lots of work! Was devil dog taken? [Tooth]
Now ill call your toyful hound!
LOL naw, it's a name I use on another forum and it was just the first thing that came to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Obamacare passed, go read the document and understand it before you ask stupid questions. I get that your a liberal and there is no use in arguing with someone who has no understanding of business. I chose adding to the unemployment ranks rather go out of business. Its called self-preservation, something you liberals lack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Also the link is not working for me, but dont bother trying to "educate" me, I am the one who writes the check so no matter how much sunshine you try to blow up my ass, it will never cover the truth of the matter.
Chunky Monkey is talking about "Maintaining the style of living" they currently enjoy. I have friends who refuse to drive anything less than a $70,000 car. They feel they earned that through their hard work and taking risks. Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they can't reap the fruits of their labor? I thought this was America... You want nice things, you earn them, fvck anyone who wants to take that away from you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Per my CPA -Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Medicare payroll taxes increases in 2013 from 1.45% to 2.35% for $250000 joint income or 200k single. Also the Investment side will be 3.8%.
2014 onward, Small business health insurance tax kicks in, this is where business owners will be hit by the insurance cost increases.
Moreover....
Employer mandate kicks in. Some business owners must provide insurance, pay penalties or even both! If you have 50 or more employees and do not offer insurance, the penalty is $2000 per full time (whoops everyone gonna be working part time then). In addition for >50 employees firm like myself, we must provide voucher to contributes toward employee's premium (employee's GAI is under 400% of federal poverty line)
Then you have to sum up part timers toward full time. In addition there are automatic enrollment for those with 200 workers or more. All these will increase premium.
No offense to those who are in the insurance business, but insurance companies still cannot compete beyond state border, so this will only strengthen their monopoly and price fixing!!!
Now do you know how many businesses who are barely hanging on? Probably as many as folks who live paycheck to paycheck due to the current economy. I suspect mid of 2013 to beginning of 2014, we will see many businesses falling out.