# Looking for those millionaire job creators



## Zaphod (Dec 10, 2011)

Where the fuck are they?

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators | Truthout


----------



## Chubby (Dec 10, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Where the fuck are they?
> 
> NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators | Truthout


There isn't one.  Giving them more tax break will create more jobs is a myth and it needs to die.


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 10, 2011)

they're restricted too much by regulations imposed by bills from the left


----------



## Chubby (Dec 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> they're restricted too much by regulations imposed by bills from the left


 They should move to China and pay 70% tax or face death.


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 10, 2011)

Chubby said:


> They should move to China and pay 70% tax or face death.



we're on our way to that tax plan with the current administration


----------



## DOMS (Dec 10, 2011)

Chubby said:


> They should move to China and pay 70% tax or face death.


Even worse, I'd be in China.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> we're on our way to that tax plan with the current administration



The president doesn't set the tax rate.  Congress does.  

It apparently isn't poor people holding you back.  You are holding yourself back.


----------



## LAM (Dec 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> we're on our way to that tax plan with the current administration



you really should try reading...tax rates in the US are at a 60 year low.  just about everything you believe to be an an economic fact is incorrect or erroneous at best.

Page 38 of 344

Historical Tables
Budget of the U.S. Government
www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

US is a low tax Country
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf


----------



## Bowden (Dec 11, 2011)

I am still waiting for someone to provide objective proof that a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends creates jobs.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 11, 2011)

Chubby said:


> There isn't one. Giving them more tax break will create more jobs is a myth and it needs to die.


 
You should become a millionaire and create jobs; it's really easy you know...


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 11, 2011)

ok i've seen the light....i've gonna become a commie and vote for obama....but ONLY if we have those hardcore gov't sportscamps so i can become a machine for the system


----------



## LAM (Dec 11, 2011)

DBowden said:


> I am still waiting for someone to provide objective proof that a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends creates jobs.



supply side economics is built all around a "myth" and/or ideology that high taxes prevents innovation and job creation.  but there are no mathematical models or formulas, that being the case it is based on science fiction vs science fact. 

considering that the US is a low tax country...it simply doesn't hold any water in reality.

when you look at the 5 income quintiles in the US and the amount of income that is derived from capital as a percentage of income it looks like this:

1st income quintile = 0%
2nd income quintile = 0%
3rd income quintile = 0%
4th income quintile = 1-2%
5th income quintile = 27-33%


----------



## vancouver (Dec 11, 2011)

DBowden said:


> I am still waiting for someone to provide objective proof that a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends creates jobs.


 
I want to see the same for a 50% rate and 100%...


----------



## Mudge (Dec 11, 2011)

I thought Obama was headed to a one term presidency, but the republicans are looking like a bunch of retards, most especially Herman Caen who is gone now (what a joke). Newt (serial cheater/liar) probably has the best shot, we already know nobody has the sense to vote in Ron Paul - then again I'm not sure how much he could get in anyway as everyone argues with him.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 11, 2011)

LAM said:


> supply side economics is built all around a "myth" and/or ideology that high taxes prevents innovation and job creation.  but there are no mathematical models or formulas, that being the case it is based on science fiction vs science fact.
> 
> considering that the US is a low tax country...it simply doesn't hold any water in reality.
> 
> ...



If you want to stimulate an economy you put more money in the hands of people that spend money like sailors on shore leave.  People who spend spend spend anytime they get a little extra money, lower and middle class.  They will spend more and businesses will see actual increases in profits and realize they can hire more people.

My company is a prime example of this.  We needed more guys in my division a long time ago, but my boss kept dragging his feet even though he had the money.  Then our sales went up 5 fold and we had to hire more guys to help get product in the warehouse and out to customers, we could use even more guys but, my multi-millionaire boss doesn't want to spend more in a bad economy, which will be the same trend across the country.  We are going to have to force job creators hands....


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 12, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I want to see the same for a 50% rate and 100%...



The rich haven't had it this good, much less corporations.  And unemployment is high.  Where are all the jobs, then, with all money they're saving?  

Where are the fucking jobs?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 12, 2011)

No fucking answer?


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 12, 2011)

What a farce! Twelve damn years and this sham is still being perpetrated. 

Shit, after only 6 years of life, I knew Santa Clause wasn't real.


----------



## LAM (Dec 12, 2011)

maniclion said:


> If you want to stimulate an economy you put more money in the hands of people that spend money like sailors on shore leave.  People who spend spend spend anytime they get a little extra money, lower and middle class.  They will spend more and businesses will see actual increases in profits and realize they can hire more people.



exactly...this is why the tax cuts that favor the top earners never stimulate the economy or create jobs.  this is why supply-side tax cuts have never created any net jobs in US economic history.  they need to stop reducing the tax rates for the high income earners and give more tax credits to those in the lower income quintiles that have a greater propensity to spend vs save.  tax cuts to high earners only enable them to save and invest more for themselves which obviously does not stimulate the economy in any way.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

DBowden said:


> I am still waiting for someone to provide objective proof that a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends creates jobs.


 


vancouver said:


> I want to see the same for a 50% rate and 100%...


 


Zaphod said:


> The rich haven't had it this good, much less corporations. And unemployment is high. Where are all the jobs, then, with all money they're saving?
> 
> Where are the fucking jobs?


 
*Hi, you have received -114429 reputation points from Zaphod.
Reputation was given for **this** post.

Comment:
Still waiting on your take on where the jobs are from all the money corps and the rich are sitting on*

Are you fucking serious, you negged me for this post? I didn't say a low tax rate would create jobs, not fucking once. All that I'm saying is that a high tax rate will not create jobs either. Entrepreneurs create jobs, free markets create jobs and free people create jobs. Government bureaucracy is the greatest tax to the middle class. The government cannot create jobs because it doesn't know how to. It only knows how to spend money. If it takes more money from the rich, all we'll have is nice roads and bridges for a few years, but eventually, everyone will be fucked.

You want to know where the jobs are. Get off your fucking ass, go down to a thrift store, pick up some business books for a dollar and fucking make something out of yourself. It's what I did 15 years ago and guess what??? I haven't begged the government for a job since; I've paid salaries. I don't hate rich poeple, they're my neighbors. And you know what. Life is good.

For all you other guys that find yourself between jobs, don't let the governmnet continue to screw you...you'll get back on your feet.

If anyone other that Zaphod and LAM agee with me, you can show me the love.

You know, even LAM didn't neg me with all the heated debates we had.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 12, 2011)

vancouver said:


> *Hi, you have received -114429 reputation points from Zaphod.
> Reputation was given for **this** post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...



Wait, if lowering taxes doesn't create jobs why do we do it? It seems raising taxes may be a good way to fix another jam we're in, i.e., our skyrocketing debt. And before you say it, I agree cutting spending should be done, but revenue also needs to be raised. You can't deny that starting 2 wars and slashing taxes was a primary driver of our debt.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Wait, if lowering taxes doesn't create jobs why do we do it? It seems raising taxes may be a good way to fix another jam we're in, i.e., our skyrocketing debt. And before you say it, I agree cutting spending should be done, but revenue also needs to be raised. You can't deny that starting 2 wars and slashing taxes was a primary driver of our debt.


 
I agree with you 100%. I think you and I think a lot alike. I'm not in favour of increased income tax, but rather consumer tax. You can't evade sales tax. If you spend within your means, you're not penalized; but if you're a thrift shopper and your income tax goes up, not only do you spend less, you're penalized anyway.

The U.S. is a consumer economy; it needs people to spend. Increase consumer tax, businesses and consumers will find a fair price for everything and the government (muni and federal) get their taxes. Tax people at source and not only do you fuck the consumer, you get nothing for the money you give the government...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I agree with you 100%. I think you and I think a lot alike. I'm not in favour of increased income tax, but rather consumer tax. You can't evade sales tax. If you spend within your means, you're not penalized; but if you're a thrift shopper and your income tax goes up, not only do you spend less, you're penalized anyway.
> 
> The U.S. is a consumer economy; it needs people to spend. Increase consumer tax, businesses and consumers will find a fair price for everything and the government (muni and federal) get their taxes. Tax people at source and not only do you fuck the consumer, you get nothing for the money you give the government...


 
BTW, most nations that use a consumer tax system do not tax essentials such as food, shelter and medicine. So the system works for the poor or those people who are trying to cut back...


----------



## LAM (Dec 12, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I didn't say a low tax rate would create jobs, not fucking once. All that I'm saying is that a high tax rate will not create jobs either.



the US doesn't have a high tax rate, the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the OECD and the lowest tax rates for all large, wealthy industrialized country's in the world.

the CPI in the US has been manipulated since the days of Nixon to understate inflation by about 5-6%.  this is another reason why the loss of a progressive tax system in the US is causing a rapid shrinkage in the size of the middle class in the US.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 12, 2011)

vancouver said:


> BTW, most nations that use a consumer tax system do not tax essentials such as food, shelter and medicine. So the system works for the poor or those people who are trying to cut back...


 
Werd.  A Fair Tax.  But, it'll never happen.  There are entire industries that have a vested interest in the tax code remaining complex and convoluted.  Plus, it is completely logical, which is another reason that it would be DOA.


----------



## LAM (Dec 12, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Werd.  A Fair Tax.  But, it'll never happen.  There are entire industries that have a vested interest in the tax code remaining complex and convoluted.  Plus, it is completely logical, which is another reason that it would be DOA.



a fair tax would work in a country that doesn't have high income inequality not suitable for a country with a very high rate of income inequality.  to imply that taxing one at the low end of the income spectrum at say 18K a year and another at the high end of the spectrum at 400M a year at the same percentage is fair is simply ludicrous.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

LAM said:


> a fair tax would work in a country that doesn't have high income inequality not suitable for a country with a very high rate of income inequality. to imply that taxing one at the low end of the income spectrum at say 18K a year and another at the high end of the spectrum at 400M a year at the same percentage is fair is simply ludicrous.


 
Really??? So why is it that most of the Eastern European countries have switched to a flat tax system, starting in 2001 with Russia? Those that have not are leaning towards it. Lots of income disparity there. Not only have these countries incresed tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, they are all seeing their economies grow at an average clip of 6% annually. These countries have also seen a reduction in poverty since making tax reforms. So how do these facts work into your theory??

Keep in mind that most (if not all) have exemptions on the first bit of income; for most of the poor, this eliminates tax. It substantially reduces rates for the lower middle class.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Werd. A Fair Tax. But, it'll never happen. There are entire industries that have a vested interest in the tax code remaining complex and convoluted. Plus, it is completely logical, which is another reason that it would be DOA.


 
I totally agree with you...

Corporations are not evil, they simply play by the rules that exist. A flat tax would not only end the BS, it would cost less to run...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 12, 2011)

LAM said:


> the US doesn't have a high tax rate, the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the OECD and the lowest tax rates for all large, wealthy industrialized country's in the world.
> 
> the CPI in the US has been manipulated since the days of Nixon to understate inflation by about 5-6%. this is another reason why the loss of a progressive tax system in the US is causing a rapid shrinkage in the size of the middle class in the US.


 
Perhaps this assumption is why you have so much difficulty debating with intelligent people on this board...

The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates of all OECD countries, according to the OECD.

The U.S. ranks in the middle of the pack for personal income tax.

Not sure which OECD you're getting all of your fact from, but the real one says you're full of shit!!


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 12, 2011)

Chubby said:


> They should move to China and pay 70% tax or face death.


 

 You mean my taxes are about to go up?

Anyhoo, NPR is a joke and everyone knows it.  George Soros, the billionaire, has definitely created a few jobs at NPR.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I agree with you 100%. I think you and I think a lot alike. I'm not in favour of increased income tax, but rather consumer tax. You can't evade sales tax. If you spend within your means, you're not penalized; but if you're a thrift shopper and your income tax goes up, not only do you spend less, you're penalized anyway.
> 
> The U.S. is a consumer economy; it needs people to spend. Increase consumer tax, businesses and consumers will find a fair price for everything and the government (muni and federal) get their taxes. Tax people at source and not only do you fuck the consumer, you get nothing for the money you give the government...



Agree 100% on a sales tax over income tax.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Perhaps this assumption is why you have so much difficulty debating with intelligent people on this board...
> 
> The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates of all OECD countries, according to the OECD.
> 
> ...



No corporations actually pay the US corporate tax rate, they pay something about 50% less.  The only people paying the corporate tax rate are small businesses, which is the problem.  The people actually making all of the money are paying 50% as much as Mom & Pop's General Store, who make about 2% of what a corporation makes.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> *Hi, you have received -114429 reputation points from Zaphod.
> Reputation was given for **this** post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...



Right here, fuckface.  http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/open-chat/146836-corporate-taxpayers-corporate-tax-dodgers-2008-10-a.html




> I think the more employees a business owner employs the more tax incentive he or she should have.



How much more tax incentive do these guys need?  They dodge taxes, pay almost the lowest tax rate on the planet and are sitting on a shit ton of cash.  A lot of those companies are even getting government subsidies.  

Since you're such an ignorant fuckstick I'll let you pass on answering where the jobs are.  You wouldn't know anyway.  You get to where you are by gobbling the cock of your boss and gargling with his jizz before swallowing it down?  Your lack of intelligence lends credence to that theory I have of you.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 13, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Agree 100% on a sales tax over income tax.



That's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Chubby (Dec 13, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Agree 100% on a sales tax over income tax.


Do you mean more sales tax and zero income tax?


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Perhaps this assumption is why you have so much difficulty debating with intelligent people on this board...
> 
> The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates of all OECD countries, according to the OECD.
> 
> ...



PART II. Taxation of Corporate and Capital Income (2011)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/53/33717536.xls


Table A. Total tax revenue as percentage of GDP
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/38/46721091.xls


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Right here, fuckface. http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/o...axpayers-corporate-tax-dodgers-2008-10-a.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You fucking retard. You have to have a boss in order to gobble is cook and by the way, that's a realy retarded phrase.

I am the boss mutherfucker...

So listen, I know you're upset because all of the big bad corporations think you're an unemployable fucktard, but look on the bright side. There is a thrift store just down the road from your house. There are not only several business books in there for a dollar, there are self help books too. Maybe LAM can lend you some of his Disney books.



			
				Zaphod said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -115241 reputation points from Zaphod.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> That\'s because LAM is a decent fellow. I\'m not.


 
You guys ride much together??


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Do you mean more sales tax and zero income tax?



Yup


----------



## Chubby (Dec 13, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Yup


This is same as increacing the tax for the people who make less.  This would be fair if there isn't big gap between rich and poor.  people at the bottom probably can't afford to buy foods even if they work full time.  They have to find a way to close the gap, only then it is fair.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 13, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Wait, if lowering taxes doesn't create jobs why do we do it? It seems raising taxes may be a good way to fix another jam we're in, i.e., our skyrocketing debt. And before you say it, I agree cutting spending should be done, but revenue also needs to be raised. You can't deny that starting 2 wars and slashing taxes was a primary driver of our debt.



I am a conservative and see the value in a more progressive tax system.  That said, I don't think rates need to go up that much but deductions, write offs and most of the loopholes need to go away.  I don't buy into the argument that corporate tax needs to be lowered either.  I think it could be very clear and simple set at 15-20% where it is also progressive in that there should possibly by 2 or 3 rates that focus on letting the real job creators, small business owners, pay less and the job killers pay more.  If you hire a reasonable percentage of employees domestically that should drop you down to a lower tax bracket as a corporation; if you offshore jobs you should be locked into the highest rate for 5-10 years.  Companies need to realize that fucking us all over with their not paying taxes has to stop.  In my world of ideals, this is how I would like to see it.  

The US was doing pretty well during the Clinton years and taxes weren't crazy high or low for that matter, not a bad plan to work off of don't you think?  I don't like Bill all that much, he made some bonehead decisions that had bad effects on the healthcare system in the US more so than anything, but he kept the economy going strong.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Yup


 
!!!!! Bingo

Only I would be in favor of gradually moving to this system, say a 10% flat tax that goes down by 1% per year, this way the feds can adjust.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> This is same as increacing the tax for the people who make less.  This would be fair if there isn't big gap between rich and poor.  people at the bottom probably can't afford to buy foods even if they work full time.  They have to find a way to close the gap, only then it is fair.



Chubby, I question what reality you live in often.  Have you ever noticed food is not taxed?  All you are taxed on at the grocery store are non-food items.  If you do a national sales tax you still exempt food and basic staples that people need to live.  That makes it a near zero tax situation for the poor assuming they are consuming little but what is needed to survive.  A national sales tax also captures revenue from the black market that is spent.  States collect tax on this but the federal government does not obviously.  Dale is 100% right, you either go to a national sales tax if you are going to perpetuate a consumption based economy or you have a real progressive tax system with little loopholes that allows for upward mobility and a middle class that is not constantly broke.  Also, this requires interest rates to come up significantly to encourage savings once again.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 13, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I am a conservative and see the value in a more progressive tax system.  That said, I don't think rates need to go up that much but deductions, write offs and most of the loopholes need to go away.  I don't buy into the argument that corporate tax needs to be lowered either.  I think it could be very clear and simple set at 15-20% where it is also progressive in that there should possibly by 2 or 3 rates that focus on letting the real job creators, small business owners, pay less and the job killers pay more.  If you hire a reasonable percentage of employees domestically that should drop you down to a lower tax bracket as a corporation; if you offshore jobs you should be locked into the highest rate for 5-10 years.  Companies need to realize that fucking us all over with their not paying taxes has to stop.  In my world of ideals, this is how I would like to see it.
> 
> The US was doing pretty well during the Clinton years and taxes weren't crazy high or low for that matter, not a bad plan to work off of don't you think?  I don't like Bill all that much, he made some bonehead decisions that had bad effects on the healthcare system in the US more so than anything, but he kept the economy going strong.



Taxes aren't even the problem. You can tax the shit out of the people - hell, tax them 100% - but it's not going to solve shit if we don't handle the real problem: spending.

The easiest ways to control spending:

1. Stop waging unnecessary wars.
2. Kick the illegals out and seal the borders.
3. Change the budget system from "spend it or you lose it" to one where an agency/organization can sock away left over budget money for tough times.
4. Try to control outsourcing, using Tax as a tool if needs be.

If we did those steps, and did nothing to the tax rates, we'd be so much better off.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> !!!!! Bingo
> 
> Only I would be in favor of gradually moving to this system, say a 10% flat tax that goes down by 1% per year, this way the feds can adjust.



This would be a long process and requires a major shift in the amount of government spending.


----------



## awhites1 (Dec 13, 2011)

If I was a millionaire you think I would waste my money on a bunch of idiots looking for a handout? Why the hell would I waste my hard earned money on Kardashian watching, Lady Gaga listening to facebook whores? everybody in the world is an idiot these days. they're investing in themselves


----------



## oufinny (Dec 13, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Taxes aren't even the problem. You can tax the shit out of the people - hell, tax them 100% - but it's not going to solve shit if we don't handle the real problem: spending.
> 
> The easiest ways to control spending:
> 
> ...



Yes all this does need to happen, whether it comes to fruition being that the MIC is such a strong lobby, don't bet on it.  There are no jobs for all the people working for the defense contractors cause they all went to other places and the fact there is little domestic drilling for oil, natural gas and even coal mining is down... that leads to lots of unemployment.  No President is going to advocate that except maybe Ron Paul but he has his own isolationist problems.


----------



## Chubby (Dec 13, 2011)

awhites1 said:


> *If I was a millionaire you think I would waste my money on a bunch of idiots looking for a handout?* Why the hell would I waste my hard earned money on Kardashian watching, Lady Gaga listening to facebook whores? everybody in the world is an idiot these days. they're investing in themselves


 People on the top get more handout than people at the bottom, but you see no problem with that, do you?  What a selective vision.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> This is same as increacing the tax for the people who make less. This would be fair if there isn't big gap between rich and poor. people at the bottom probably can't afford to buy foods even if they work full time. They have to find a way to close the gap, only then it is fair.


 
A consumption based tax system allows for expemptions. In Canada we do not pay tax on the first $11,000 (and change) of income. We pay no provincial tax in my province on the first $16,000. We do not have a flat tax system for federal, but if we did, those at the lower income thresholds would pay much less tax as a percentage of pay then wealthy people. Say the flat tax rate is 10% federal and 6% provincial (our provincial tax system is a flat tax). A person who makes 30K/year is only going to pay Federal tax on 19K and provincial tax on 14K. The person who makes 80K is going to pay more and the person who make 200K is going to pay more.

If you have a souse that is not working (or a disabled child), you can claim their personal tax expemption amount (11K, a 8/9K fo the child). So for a person who makes 30K a year in this case, they pay very little tax.

We do have a conumption tax of 5% which is on top of any provincial (state) tax. Under a flat tax system, this tax should go up to 15%. In Canada; Food, shelter medicine, childrens clothing and shoes are exempt from tax. So if you are lower income and spend within your means, you will pay much less tax than the wealthy. In fact, specialty foods are not exempt from tax, so the fancy shit the wealthy buy are taxed.

A consumer based tax system would see the largest percent of tax revenue come from the upper class to wealthy. The consumer tax I paid on my car, when combined witht he provincial tax rate was $14,280. If it were $20,000, I still would have bought the car. Half my neighbors have a more expensive car, they are all wealthy. That is a lot of tax revenue...

Norway, Sweden and Denmark have a consumer tax of 25%.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

oufinny said:


> This would be a long process and requires a major shift in the amount of government spending.


 
Perhaps, but it would solve the problem of 50% of Americans paying no tax at all. Forget about the big corps, when you add up the collective tax evation in the U.S, it pales in comparison. (I've read it could be as high as 50%, it could be less, but the point still remains)

Many Eastern European contries saw their tax revenue rise 20% in the first few years of instituting a flat tax; add a consumption tax to that and I think you have a winner. It can't be worse than the current system.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> PART II. Taxation of Corporate and Capital Income (2011)
> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/53/33717536.xls
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why the fuck is everyone so fixated on large corporations who find a way to pay less tax. It pales in comparison to the collective amount of tax evation among individuals.

Create a flat tax system with no loopholes, add a VAT and Voila, problem fixed.

Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP? This is an extremely subjective ratio and is an apples and oranges comparison to counties which tax income from capital much differently.

Your arguement is that we should tax income from capital the same as income. Cross reference the growth rates of countries that tax income from capital with the growth rates of the U.S. over the last 50 years. If you can prove that taxing income from capital contibutes to growth, I'll jump on your ship...you are going to have a very difficult time with this considering the economists at the OECD (which you continually reference) would disagree.

A Consumer Tax system would tax income from capital indirectly, but it would be the choice of the consumer whether they want to pay or not...


----------



## Gissurjon (Dec 13, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Chubby, I question what reality you live in often.  *Have you ever noticed food is not taxed?*  All you are taxed on at the grocery store are non-food items.  If you do a national sales tax you still exempt food and basic staples that people need to live.  That makes it a near zero tax situation for the poor assuming they are consuming little but what is needed to survive.  A national sales tax also captures revenue from the black market that is spent.  States collect tax on this but the federal government does not obviously.  Dale is 100% right, you either go to a national sales tax if you are going to perpetuate a consumption based economy or you have a real progressive tax system with little loopholes that allows for upward mobility and a middle class that is not constantly broke.  Also, this requires interest rates to come up significantly to encourage savings once again.



WHAT! where do you live? they sure as hell tax the food in GA. Only ones that are exempt from paying that are people using EBT.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Gissurjon said:


> WHAT! where do you live? they sure as hell tax the food in GA. Only ones that are exempt from paying that are people using EBT.


 
Wow! Clearly that's a state prerogative, I'm surprised by it, you would think that would be major election issue that could bring in a new government...

It's also a state tax though. I would be very surprised if the feds taxed food and other essentials in a adopting a national VAT; since it's pretty well established that most countries with a VAT do not...


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 13, 2011)

Gissurjon said:


> WHAT! where do you live? they sure as hell tax the food in GA. Only ones that are exempt from paying that are people using EBT.



Which States Tax the Sale of Food for Home Consumption in 2009? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Wow,that sucks,no tax on grub for home in Pa.
Ala. and Mississippi tax everyone on food(no excemptions).


----------



## awhites1 (Dec 13, 2011)

Chubby said:


> People on the top get more handout than people at the bottom, but you see no problem with that, do you?  What a selective vision.



are you calling me a gay? really you must be since you know about tops and bottoms


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> !!!!! Bingo
> 
> Only I would be in favor of gradually moving to this system, say a 10% flat tax that goes down by 1% per year, this way the feds can adjust.



flat tax is regressive and the worst thing for the middle class in any country with high income inequality, this is basic economics.  when dealing with a country with high income inequality like the US it's one of the leading causes to our rapidly shrinking middle class since the 80's.  then count in shrinking tax revenue from large firms and it's easy to see why the US budget deficit is constantly increasing, spending is a problem but tax collection and avoidance in large firms is an even bigger problem.  the tax haven act can never make it out of committee because of grover norquist and his stupid tax pledge with the republicans.


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Why the fuck is everyone so fixated on large corporations who find a way to pay less tax. It pales in comparison to the collective amount of tax evation among individuals.



and this statement is based on data from where?

many of those firms that pay no tax are not only company's that have record profits in the US but in world history...


----------



## oufinny (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> and this statement is based on data from where?
> 
> many of those firms that pay no tax are not only company's that have record profits in the US but in world history...



I don't think he is wrong in that assertion at all.  If you look at many people that have an LLC that they filter all their expenses through either legitimately or not, the number is much larger than the amount of Fortune 1000 companies in the US that are dodging taxes.  Does the total amount to more or less, well that we will never know based on the fact you don't know what they aren't paying necessarily.  I know for a fact my Uncle has a real estate venture solely because he is in the highest tax bracket and has no more kids living at home, he is taxed A LOT so now he uses this lower his gross.  That is a totally legal was to do it but of course he still pay taxes as this doesn't even come close to covering his new income.  Just because there is not a study does not mean a logical person cannot see that Vancouver is more than likely correct in his assumption.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> flat tax is regressive and the worst thing for the middle class in any country with high income inequality, this is basic economics. when dealing with a country with high income inequality like the US it's one of the leading causes to our rapidly shrinking middle class since the 80's. then count in shrinking tax revenue from large firms and it's easy to see why the US budget deficit is constantly increasing, spending is a problem but tax collection and avoidance in large firms is an even bigger problem. the tax haven act can never make it out of committee because of grover norquist and his stupid tax pledge with the republicans.


 
Apparently your theory (which is stated as fact) does not apply to most of Eastern Europe who has been shifting to a flat tax system since 2001. Their inequality is greater than the U.S., but since 2001, the inequality gap as narrowed across all of these countries. Georgia is a shining example. Perhaps basic Economics only applies to the U.S....


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> and this statement is based on data from where?
> 
> many of those firms that pay no tax are not only company's that have record profits in the US but in world history...


 
Why Do Some People Pay No Federal Income Tax? - Forbes

Tax fairness: Little income, little to tax | The Economist

Although a large percentage do not pay tax because they make less than 20K, most households who make between 20K-40K and have children can reduce their taxes to zero. One of the problems with those who make less than 20K is that most of them can be in a negetive tax bracket, meaning they recieve tax refund from the government, even though they paid not tax. I feel for these people, but a good percentage of them I do not feel sorry for. Most of us are born with equal opportunity.

Then there is a good percentage of 50K-100K earners who can write their income down to near zero.

22% of those who pay no income tax are senior citizens who have big tax deductions. Perhaps they are deserved, but it is not sustainable as these same people are a big cost burden; this will only get worse.

And as outfinny has arleady stated, higher income earners have big potential deductions.

The there are all the people who exagertae charity deductions and flat out tax evaders.

All of this amounts to more than the top 1000 corps in America, you cannot argue the law of large numbers. 75-100 million peope not paying tax is going to be more than the top 1000 corporations

A flat tax system solves all of this while at the same time is fair for those earning under 20K. Add a big VAT which is not applicable to food, childrens clothing, shelter and medicine and you'll have a large predictible tax base. The government will also save a shit load of money collecting taxes. You could downzise the IRS by 50% overnight.

You will not make up this shortfall by taxing businesses, it's impossible so I don't even know why there is even an arguement, it's rediculous. If the government increases taxes for these businesses, they will simply leave the country. There are simply too many other great countries in the world that have lower corporate tax rates, I live in one of them...


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You fucking retard. You have to have a boss in order to gobble is cook and by the way, that's a realy retarded phrase.
> 
> I am the boss mutherfucker...
> 
> ...



Sure, you're the boss.  Everyone is the fucking boss.  You're just a nameless, faceless cock gobbler like everybody else who figures his insults actually mean anything.  You're a chump.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Sure, you're the boss. Everyone is the fucking boss. You're just a nameless, faceless cock gobbler like everybody else who figures his insults actually mean anything. You're a chump.


 
I don't like cock too much, but everything else you say I agree with. Yes I am the boss and yes it's pretty obvious that my insults have worked.

But if you really want to compare stature, I'd be happy to take a photo from the view of my home office window with my CLK55 AMG parked beside my waterfountain with a backdrop of perfectly manicured hedges that surround my 1/2 acre city property (look up West Vancouver property). So long as you capture the picture of your broken down Lada outside your trailer park. I'll make sure to have my laptop open to this page, just incase you think I'm taking a picture from my neighbors house (he drives a Bentley and he's the boss too)

Now rather than try to figure out what I'm all about, why don't you spend more time reading those business books I recommended...maybe one day you can be the boss too!!!


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> A flat tax system solves all of this while at the same time is fair for those earning under 20K. Add a big VAT which is not applicable to food, childrens clothing, shelter and medicine and you'll have a large predictible tax base. The government will also save a shit load of money collecting taxes. You could downzise the IRS by 50% overnight.



no matter what way you try to word it a flat tax is regressive on low income earners as a greater percentage of their income goes to paying taxes (payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, etc.) tax revenues always fall during recessions and recession recovery years so low federal tax revenue during these years are not the typical scenario.  the current recession was also caused by a global banking collapse so this is also not a "normal" recession due to the amount of home wealth that was lost in 2007 what has never been seen in any previous US recessions.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> a fair tax would work in a country that doesn't have high income inequality not suitable for a country with a very high rate of income inequality. to imply that taxing one at the low end of the income spectrum at say 18K a year and another at the high end of the spectrum at 400M a year at the same percentage is fair is simply ludicrous.


 

As it stands now, many corps and wealthy individuals are able to get by with little or no taxation.  I don't see how the percentage is really an issue.  The less you consume, the less you pay.  Also, essential items would be tax free as well as a $10k personal exemption for each familyy member.  So, a family of 4 with a HH  income of up to $40k would literally pay no taxes.  Corprations don't pay income taxes anywah in reality.  It's all passed onto us when we buy their shit.  This way, there would be no fuzzy accounting to dodge paying your share.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> no matter what way you try to word it a flat tax is regressive on low income earners as a greater percentage of their income goes to paying taxes (payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, etc.) tax revenues always fall during recessions and recession recovery years so low federal tax revenue during these years are not the typical scenario. the current recession was also caused by a global banking collapse so this is also not a "normal" recession due to the amount of home wealth that was lost in 2007 what has never been seen in any previous US recessions.


 
Excuse my ignorance, but poor people in the U.S. own property???

Do you think before you write? Low income earners should not be paying property taxes as I don't know how the fuck they could afford property. Sure some cities have more affordable real estate, but it's out of reach in most cities, as it should be. If you are middle class, choose a cheap neighborhood if you can't afford property tax.

Sales tax??? If you are poor, why exactly would you be buying much other than food, clothing, shelter and perhaps books to learn how not to be poor? A larger percentage of your purchases would be exempt from tax.

If you make 20K a year and you have a 10K personal exemption amount at a 20% tax rate, 10% of your income goes to pay tax. 13% at 30k, 15% at 40K and 16% at 50K. See how this is going...

So, explain to me how a larger percentage of low income peoples income would go to tax...I do math for a living, I'm a bit confused...

BTW, the OECD, your favorite reference, recognizes VAT as the most important tax in modern history...


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but poor people in the U.S. own property???
> 
> Do you think before you write? Low income earners should not be paying property taxes as I don't know how the fuck they could afford property. Sure some cities have more affordable real estate, but it's out of reach in most cities, as it should be. If you are middle class, choose a cheap neighborhood if you can't afford property tax.
> 
> ...



ah yes, I thought you knew everything about the US and the CRA and LMI borrowers.  you don't know enough about the US to be even having this conversation


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

LAM said:


> ah yes, I thought you knew everything about the US and the CRA and LMI borrowers. you don't know enough about the US to be even having this conversation


 
 Seriously man, your are the funiest MOFO I've ever chatted with. I was being sarcastic!!!

Fucking hilarious. I wrote extensively about high ratio mortgages in one of our other debates, you know LMI (or in Canada they are refered to CMHC insured). Stop trying so hard with me, you are really looking like an idiot. You are suppose to assume that because I actually wrote multiple exams to attain my designations, that I would know this stuff. Actually, most idiots know this shit...

It's like having an argument with a kid who just learned a new topic in school and is convinced they know more than their father...


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 13, 2011)

And as for millionaires not creating jobs.  All I can say is that I've been hired by a few millionaires.  But, I've never been hired by a poor person.  They'll start hiring when there is demand for their goods and they have something for those new hires to do.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 13, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I don't like cock too much, but everything else you say I agree with. Yes I am the boss and yes it's pretty obvious that my insults have worked.
> 
> But if you really want to compare stature, I'd be happy to take a photo from the view of my home office window with my CLK55 AMG parked beside my waterfountain with a backdrop of perfectly manicured hedges that surround my 1/2 acre city property (look up West Vancouver property). So long as you capture the picture of your broken down Lada outside your trailer park. I'll make sure to have my laptop open to this page, just incase you think I'm taking a picture from my neighbors house (he drives a Bentley and he's the boss too)
> 
> Now rather than try to figure out what I'm all about, why don't you spend more time reading those business books I recommended...maybe one day you can be the boss too!!!



There's no need to figure you out.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 13, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> There's no need to figure you out.


 




			
				Zaphod said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -115241 reputation points from Zaphod.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


 

You and LAM 


Again, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings...you will land on your feet one day (well, probably not), but good luck. I don't hate anyone.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You and LAM
> 
> 
> Again, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings...you will land on your feet one day (well, probably not), but good luck. I don't hate anyone.



You think you hurt my feelings?  Only a self-hating moron in need of someone else's approval would think my feelings could be hurt.


----------



## LAM (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Seriously man, your are the funiest MOFO I've ever chatted with. I was being sarcastic!!!
> 
> Fucking hilarious. I wrote extensively about high ratio mortgages in one of our other debates, you know LMI (or in Canada they are refered to CMHC insured). Stop trying so hard with me, you are really looking like an idiot. You are suppose to assume that because I actually wrote multiple exams to attain my designations, that I would know this stuff. Actually, most idiots know this shit...
> 
> It's like having an argument with a kid who just learned a new topic in school and is convinced they know more than their father...



no, actually you are the idiot and you aren't impressing anyone with your "rich guy" from Vancouver act....

your flat tax solution wouldn't work in the US.  we have 50 states all with different tax rates on property, sales, etc. and income brackets some with 1 and others with 13 and you have like 13 different territories or close to that. the funding for our education systems also come from different sources.  while the US and canada do have the same LFPR the populations are not even close to the same at 34M and 300M along with levels and sources and of retirement income, etc.  the political structure and social atmosphere are also night and day in the US and Canada.  many things are the same between our countries and many are not.

nice try though...


----------



## oufinny (Dec 14, 2011)

LAM said:


> no, actually you are the idiot and you aren't impressing anyone with your "rich guy" from Vancouver act....
> 
> your flat tax solution wouldn't work in the US.  we have 50 states all with different tax rates on property, sales, etc. and income brackets some with 1 and others with 13 and you have like 13 different territories or close to that. the funding for our education systems also come from different sources.  while the US and canada do have the same LFPR the populations are not even close to the same at 34M and 300M along with levels and sources and of retirement income, etc.  the political structure and social atmosphere are also night and day in the US and Canada.  many things are the same between our countries and many are not.
> 
> nice try though...



LAM, you are both making good points and him being from Canada does not invalidate anything.  Regardless of your knowledge which may be extensive, he works in the industry now and has access to information many of us don't.  It is a lively debate, you both are taking it way too personal.  

Zaphod - you are clearly jealous he made it and sound like Chubby when you talk shit about his success.  Applaud the guy for making it, don't cut him down.  Dude is self employed and done what many of us can only dream of, it is in fact what I want to accomplish one day too.  I don't care if he sounds like a dick, so do a lot of people with knowledge that far exceeds your own, doesn't mean you don't listen and possibly learn.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

oufinny said:


> LAM, you are both making good points and him being from Canada does not invalidate anything.  Regardless of your knowledge which may be extensive, he works in the industry now and has access to information many of us don't.  It is a lively debate, you both are taking it way too personal.
> 
> Zaphod - you are clearly jealous he made it and sound like Chubby when you talk shit about his success.  Applaud the guy for making it, don't cut him down.  Dude is self employed and done what many of us can only dream of, it is in fact what I want to accomplish one day too.  I don't care if he sounds like a dick, so do a lot of people with knowledge that far exceeds your own, doesn't mean you don't listen and possibly learn.



I'm not jealous of the guy.  Not in the least.  It's great that he's successful.  That doesn't excuse someone being a dick.  If he's going to serve it up he's going to get it back.


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> I'm not jealous of the guy.  Not in the least.  It's great that he's successful.  That doesn't excuse someone being a dick.  If he's going to serve it up he's going to get it back.




An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.....





TROLLOLOLOL


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it does!


----------



## LAM (Dec 14, 2011)

oufinny said:


> LAM, you are both making good points and him being from Canada does not invalidate anything.  Regardless of your knowledge which may be extensive, he works in the industry now and has access to information many of us don't.  It is a lively debate, you both are taking it way too personal.



those in the industry especially in another country don't have access to any special data unless he has a subscription to lexis nexxis which I no longer have.  there are no such keepers of such data.  remember I used to work in the banking industry also, and not much has changed in the 6 years I've been out of it.

you simply cannot try to employ a "simple" flat tax solution that they may us in Canada in the US.  25% of the US workforce suffers from low wages that's 42M people which is 7M more than the entire population of Canada.  and another 20% of the US workforce is under-employed.

our countries "appear" to be very similar externally but are very different when you look at macroeconomics.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 14, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> And as for millionaires not creating jobs.  All I can say is that I've been hired by a few millionaires.  But, I've never been hired by a poor person.  They'll start hiring when there is demand for their goods and they have something for those new hires to do.



The fastest way to do that is put money in the hands of the demanders(poor and middle class who spend more than save)...


----------



## LAM (Dec 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> The fastest way to do that is put money in the hands of the demanders(poor and middle class who spend more than save)...



this is why you see less economic/bubble burst cycles in other countries were a much greater percentage of GDP goes to social protections, all those monies are kept in the active economy which in turn makes it more stable.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> I'm not jealous of the guy. Not in the least. It's great that he's successful. That doesn't excuse someone being a dick. If he's going to serve it up he's going to get it back.


 
 If memory serves me correctly, you neg repped me on a post before you or I had a single thing to say about eachother. BTW, I received plenty of positive rep for the same post. You then proceeded to neg rep me another 5 or 6X rather than debate. When you tried to debate, you simply came out looking like an idiot. Funny thing is, you took my first post out of context.

Not only are you jealous, you're an angry person; It's all over the posts in my other threads. You made at the man, because you're not the man. You should spend less time hating and more time building yourself. I hate no one.

As for being a dick, we'll it seems I'm only a dick to those who act like a dick, you're the only one neg repping me. I still haven't neg repped you and I won't...no need to play that game. Life is good.

Again, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings...


----------



## oufinny (Dec 14, 2011)

LAM said:


> those in the industry especially in another country don't have access to any special data unless he has a subscription to lexis nexxis which I no longer have.  there are no such keepers of such data.  remember I used to work in the banking industry also, and not much has changed in the 6 years I've been out of it.
> 
> you simply cannot try to employ a "simple" flat tax solution that they may us in Canada in the US.  25% of the US workforce suffers from low wages that's 42M people which is 7M more than the entire population of Canada.  and another 20% of the US workforce is under-employed.
> 
> our countries "appear" to be very similar externally but are very different when you look at macroeconomics.



I never felt or said a flat tax is a solution.  I actually posted earlier I am in support of a more progressive tax system.  America is unique, no question about that.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

LAM said:


> those in the industry especially in another country don't have access to any special data unless he has a subscription to lexis nexxis which I no longer have. there are no such keepers of such data. remember I used to work in the banking industry also, and not much has changed in the 6 years I've been out of it.
> 
> you simply cannot try to employ a "simple" flat tax solution that they may us in Canada in the US. 25% of the US workforce suffers from low wages that's 42M people which is 7M more than the entire population of Canada. and another 20% of the US workforce is under-employed.
> 
> our countries "appear" to be very similar externally but are very different when you look at macroeconomics.


 
Are you for real? Can you actually pretend that you know something about math. 7, million, 45, million, 100 trillion; what does it matter? Percentages do not change because you have more mass...

Further, I've said more than once, Eastern Europe, countries that have worse income disparity than the U.S. have been having success with a flat tax system since 2001. Many countries in Europe are looking to switch as a result of this success and many American economists, smarter than you and I are in favour. I also said that a flat tax system would need to be combined with a VAT, something the OECD is very big on, something most Economist are in favour of as well.

You reference the OECD every chance you get, but only in a way that suits your theory. I reference the OECD and you do nothing to try and actually prove me wrong. Your head is so wrapped around your theory, there's no room in your brain for anything else.

Anyway, I'm done debating with you, I'm now convinced I've been debating with a conspiracy theorist this entire time, which I can admit, has been pretty stupid on my part...

You are a funny guy though. I'm from a small country so I have no access to data...that was fucking hilarious...


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 14, 2011)

That have data in Canada?  Actually, you sound fairly right wing to be from a blue state like Canada.


----------



## LAM (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Further, I've said more than once, Eastern Europe, countries that have worse income disparity than the U.S. have been having success with a flat tax system since 2001. Many countries in Europe are looking to switch as a result of this success and many American economists, smarter than you and I are in favour. I also said that a flat tax system would need to be combined with a VAT, something the OECD is very big on, something most Economist are in favour of as well.



and those country's that have implemented a flat tax are one's that until recently used to communist....

your barking up the wrong tree...I've been studying this stuff for decades and know it all off the top of my head.

I suggest reading the ILO Global Wage Reports from 2008/2009 and 2010


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> That have data in Canada? Actually, you sound fairly right wing to be from a blue state like Canada.


 
I'm in Western Canada and out here, we are more fiscally conservative than most of the US combined. In Alberta, my old home province, there is one Liberal member of parlaiment, the other 29 are as republican as it gets. There have actually been quite a few media publications on how the two countries are reversing roles. Our Prime Mnisiter might as well be a Texan...

All this said, I'm Libertarian, not blue or red.


----------



## troubador (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I'm in Western Canada and out here, we are more fiscally conservative than most of the US combined. In Alberta, my old home province, there is one Liberal member of parlaiment, the other 29 are as republican as it gets. There have actually been quite a few media publications on how the two countries are reversing roles. Our Prime Mnisiter might as well be a Texan...
> 
> All this said, I'm Libertarian, not blue or red.



Then maybe ya'll can repeal some of your shitty gun laws.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 14, 2011)

troubador said:


> Then maybe ya'll can repeal some of your shitty gun laws.


 

 I said fiscally conservative, not John Wayne conservative. That said, our long gun registry is getting scrapped fairly soon, the legislation has already been passed. There will be no need to register a long gun in the future.

Hand guns are a different issue and a completely seperate topic.


----------



## troubador (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I said fiscally conservative, not John Wayne conservative. That said, our long gun registry is getting scrapped fairly soon, the legislation has already been passed. There will be no need to register a long gun in the future.
> 
> Hand guns are a different issue and a completely seperate topic.



Well that's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2011)

vancouver said:


> If memory serves me correctly, you neg repped me on a post before you or I had a single thing to say about eachother. BTW, I received plenty of positive rep for the same post. You then proceeded to neg rep me another 5 or 6X rather than debate. When you tried to debate, you simply came out looking like an idiot. Funny thing is, you took my first post out of context.
> 
> Not only are you jealous, you're an angry person; It's all over the posts in my other threads. You made at the man, because you're not the man. You should spend less time hating and more time building yourself. I hate no one.
> 
> ...


You are right.  I did start this whole thing.  And for that I apologize.  

But you still haven't hurt my feelings.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 15, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> You are right. I did start this whole thing. And for that I apologize.


 
You're a bigger man than most Zaphod. Sorry for being a dick to you. Cheers!


----------



## Chubby (Dec 15, 2011)

oufinny said:


> LAM, you are both making good points and him being from Canada does not invalidate anything. Regardless of your knowledge which may be extensive, he works in the industry now and has access to information many of us don't. It is a lively debate, you both are taking it way too personal.
> 
> Zaphod - *you are clearly jealous he made it and sound like Chubby when you talk shit about his success.* Applaud the guy for making it, don't cut him down. Dude is self employed and done what many of us can only dream of, it is in fact what I want to accomplish one day too. I don't care if he sounds like a dick, so do a lot of people with knowledge that far exceeds your own, doesn't mean you don't listen and possibly learn.


Yeah right, blame it on me.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 15, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Yeah right, blame it on me.



Just telling it like it is Chubby, no hard feelings.


----------

