Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Debt ceiling speech
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SoonerATC" data-source="post: 1581861" data-attributes="member: 9576"><p>Sounds like a governmental problem to me. They don't HAVE to provide those tax incentives, but they do. Is it fair for them to pull a bait and switch on the businesses that relocate there?</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>The people who are employed by those businesses and live in the community do pay those taxes, so what's the problem? If the government can still get by after laying XYZ person off, that means XYZ person is not essential to governing and as far as I'm concerned, that position shouldn't exist in the first place. This is a Federal example, but the FAA recently shut down, except for Air traffic controllers - there's a reason. ATC is essential to operations, but not the staff assistant drawing a 40,000 income and Federal benefits. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Un-fricken-believable. I ask you again - Person A pays 35% and Person B pays 10% (or even 0%) . How is Person A not paying his fair share, but Person B is?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How benevolent of him ::rollseyes::</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SoonerATC, post: 1581861, member: 9576"] Sounds like a governmental problem to me. They don't HAVE to provide those tax incentives, but they do. Is it fair for them to pull a bait and switch on the businesses that relocate there? The people who are employed by those businesses and live in the community do pay those taxes, so what's the problem? If the government can still get by after laying XYZ person off, that means XYZ person is not essential to governing and as far as I'm concerned, that position shouldn't exist in the first place. This is a Federal example, but the FAA recently shut down, except for Air traffic controllers - there's a reason. ATC is essential to operations, but not the staff assistant drawing a 40,000 income and Federal benefits. Un-fricken-believable. I ask you again - Person A pays 35% and Person B pays 10% (or even 0%) . How is Person A not paying his fair share, but Person B is? How benevolent of him ::rollseyes:: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Debt ceiling speech
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom