View Poll Results: Should this be Legal

Voters
335. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    96 28.66%
  • No

    230 68.66%
  • No, but it should

    3 0.90%
  • No, but it should be

    6 1.79%
Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ...
20
28
29
30
  1. #581
    So his fingers just slipped on the keyboard when he specifically wrote that if his taxes went up he'd have to fire people?

    Anyway, since that whole line of argument is too ridiculous to continue, we're back to the beginning where where we began, with this mistake notion that this is a set of claims based in fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  2. #582
    Also this...

    "“The Queen of Versailles,” the documentary chronicling Siegel’s quest to obnoxiously build the biggest house in America, the Florida real estate mogul claims he was “personally responsible” for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential victory. He also goes on to say that his tactics for helping Bush win “may not necessarily have been legal.” "


    Hmmm

  3. #583
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View Post
    Well I can see how this email can be misconstrued as blackmail, since you could make a case it fits the blackmail criteria. Conceiving of a situation where the CEO would have access to his employees' ballots also strains credulity.

    It still doesn't really read like a threat, it reads more like a statement of fact. And people are just reading into it as a thinly-veiled threat because CEOs are open targets for vitriol these days.
    A statement of fact where there is a harmful contingent future action based upon the actions of the audience may be indeed a statement of fact AND a threat at the same time. "Move and I will I kill you". That could be a statement of fact. But it is also undeniably a threat becaue I make it clear that if you partake in a certain action, I will impose a harmful consequence upon you.

    The question about whether it is actually a threat is really based on whether or not it appears to be a statement designed to influence the other party's course of action based on a response from you, factual or not.

    The only way really that it could be a statement of fact and not a threat is if the consequences will come outside of the control of the person making the statement. if I say "Jump off the cliff and you will fall to your death"...that's not a threat. That's a warning. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and you might break your leg", that's not a threat. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and I will break your leg"...that's a threat.
    Last edited by ptwonline; 2012-10-11 at 08:52 PM.

  4. #584
    It's not a typo, he just wrote more than he meant. I've done it, I'm sure you've done it, everyone's done it. There's just nothing else in that letter to support the argument you're putting forth.

    SO. Facts. Personal taxes aside, if new taxes are levied against his firm, the firm will reach a new production equilibrium. Is this not accurate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    A statement of fact where there is a harmful contingent future action based upon the actions of the audience may be indeed a statement of fact AND a threat at the same time. "Move and I will I kill you". That could be a statement of fact. But it is also undeniably a threat becaue I make it clear that if you partake in a certain action, I will impose a harmful consequence upon you.

    The question about whether it is actually a threat is really based on whether or not it appears to be a statement designed to influence the other party's course of action, factual or not.

    The only way really that it could be a statement of fact and not a threat is if the consequences will come outside of the control of the person making the statement. if I say "Jump off the cliff and you will fall to your death"...that's not a threat. That's a warning. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and you might break your leg", that's not a threat. If I say "jump up and down on the bed and I will break your leg"...that's a threat.
    Based on this model, the CEO's statement reads "if new taxes are levied against me, I will do the economically sensible thing and downsize, which means letting some of you go." So this statement could be considered a threat. But blackmail?
    But whether or not this IS the economically sensible thing to do is far out of my level of expertise.

  5. #585
    It's not a typo, he just wrote more than he meant.
    Oh please. You don't know this at all. You're just throwing shit up and hoping something sticks. Its dumb and you should stop it. He specifically said if his own taxes go up he will fire people. You can pretend that he didn't mean that if you want but there is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  6. #586
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Yes he does



    He specifically says that if his personal taxes go up he will have to shrink his company. He's either a complete liar or the worst businessman imaginable.
    That doesn't sound like blackmail. There isn't a direct threat.

  7. #587
    It is honestly harder for me to believe that he's throwing a hissy-fit about his money than it is to believe he made a typing error.
    So I suppose I am in denial.

    Anyways, forget the personal taxes thing, what about the company's taxes? Are layoffs not realistic in the case of new taxes?

  8. #588
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    That doesn't sound like blackmail. There isn't a direct threat.
    Courts generally are willing to read between the lines on blackmail.

    It is honestly harder for me to believe that he's throwing a hissy-fit about his money than it is to believe he made a typing error.
    A typing error is using the wrong form of "there".
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  9. #589
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View Post
    Based on this model, the CEO's statement reads "if new taxes are levied against me, I will do the economically sensible thing and downsize, which means letting some of you go." So this statement could be considered a threat. But blackmail?
    But whether or not this IS the economically sensible thing to do is far out of my level of expertise.
    Blackmail is a subset of threats, where basically the threat is to release information that the other person wants to be kept secret. I don't think this case really qualifies as blackmail, but for all intents and purposes it's morally on the same plane.

  10. #590
    Yeah I don't think legally anything will come of it but its certainly wrong of him to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  11. #591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View Post
    It is honestly harder for me to believe that he's throwing a hissy-fit about his money than it is to believe he made a typing error.
    So I suppose I am in denial.

    Anyways, forget the personal taxes thing, what about the company's taxes? Are layoffs not realistic in the case of new taxes?
    If he makes $1 million in profits and pays $300K in taxes now...

    ...and he will make $1 million in profits and pay $350K in taxes under a higher tax scenario...

    ...then name a scenario where he can lower his workforce and actually make more money than by keeping his whole workforce. If he cuts his workforce by 10% he'll make $900K in profits and pay $315K in taxes, and make less money overall. He's not better off no matter what number he decides to cut.

    If he is running inefficiently now and so cuts to save money, then that has nothing to do with taxes. If the change in tax rates is so large that the added costs, time, and trouble to move the jobs overseas will offset those increases in taxes then maybe he'll cut domestic jobs. For the kinds of small tax increases we're talking about that is not really plausible. If it would be more profiatble in that scanario then it is probably already more profitable to do it now, and so again it doesn't have much to do with tax increases.

    Even in the scenario where his business is barely profitable at all, and the tax increase reduces that profitability, it makes no sense. Again unless the taxes go up by huge amounts, it makes little or no sense. So maybe if he's only making $50K profits and pays $15K taxes, and then with the tax increase he's paying $17.5K in taxes. if his profits aren't enough it's not really because of tax increases.

  12. #592
    In other words, profitable ventures are still profitable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  13. #593
    Really, the only situation where it may have a real impact is a small businessman who lacks the funds to expand his business and higher taxes reduces the funds he has available. but of course, if he's really sure that an expansion will make him more profits, he should be getting a loan for it anyway instead of just trying to pay cash.

  14. #594
    The reason why this is definitely not blackmail is simple. If you blackmail someone, you pressure them for a coerced outcome. In this case he can't possibly know who they voted for and cannot possibly ask them who they voted for without the public knowing. Not to mention even if his whole company voted for Romney, Romney still might not win.

    Would he be blackmailing them if he told them that they might be fired if the company's stock kept falling? They can try to do something to stop the stock price from falling but it doesn't mean they can actually do anything about it. Plus he can't know if they tried to stop it anyway.

    He didn't break the law which is why he isn't being charged. I dislike what he did, but it wasn't illegal.

  15. #595
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This isn't proof of anything.
    Ok so since you refuse to discus anything and instead shove your fingers in your ears I'm done. You have repeatedly been presented the fact that UNIONS HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR HALF A CENTURY and tell everyone that they are wrong with out any reasoning. You choose to instead be willfully ignorant and argue that it doesn't happen because its on your side.

    You have not participated in a discussion in PAGES but instead said "I'M RIGHT, GTFO!" with every post.
    As for prot... haha losers he dmg needs a nerf with the intercept shield bash wtf silence crit a clothie like a mofo.
    Wow.

  16. #596
    Ok so since you refuse to discus anything and instead shove your fingers in your ears I'm done.
    Irony? Irony. You're the one who is citing "common knowledge" like that actually means jack shit.

    I've already explained to you why unions are not analogous to employers in this instance, but you refused to actually discuss that and instead just repeat your claim over and over. Irony? Irony.

    Then you're also acting like unions are bad for in your mind doing exactly what you seem to have no problem with this guy doing. But I'm the partisan.

    And finally, complaining about someone's level of contribution in a post that does nothing but complain about a person and does not actually discuss the issues at hand is pretty poor form.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-10-11 at 11:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  17. #597
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Irony? Irony. You're the one who is citing "common knowledge" like that actually means jack shit.

    I've already explained to you why unions are not analogous to employers in this instance, but you refused to actually discuss that and instead just repeat your claim over and over. Irony? Irony.

    Then you're also acting like unions are bad for in your mind doing exactly what you seem to have no problem with this guy doing. But I'm the partisan.

    And finally, complaining about someone's level of contribution in a post that does nothing but complain about a person and does not actually discuss the issues at hand is pretty poor form.
    I have no problem with unions doing it. What now?

    What i have problem with is that unions, who control the terms of your employment and existence of your employment, are ok to do it but this guy isn't. There is. no difference. Both parties control your employment and push you to vote one way or the other.

    Again, I have no problem with unions doing it, you just took your political bias and read into it. (Yes i have problems with some unions, mostly retail unions but thats not related to their political efforts)
    As for prot... haha losers he dmg needs a nerf with the intercept shield bash wtf silence crit a clothie like a mofo.
    Wow.

  18. #598
    You simply don't understand that there is a difference between the relationship a worker has with a union and the one he has with his employer. Unions and workers are on the same side in the market. The job of the union is to do what is best for its members. Its a natural extension of this to tell its workers who they should vote for in their own best interest.

    Employers and employees however have an adversarial relationship. They can be friendly and cooperate, and they generally benefit when they do, but that doesn't mean they're on the same side. They're two parties in an exchange. Fundamentally different relationship.

    Was that clear enough?

    Furthermore, unions still don't have direct firing power over their members. When they say "you should do X" is doesn't have the same coercive force behind it as when your employer does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  19. #599
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Would you restrict a company's right to move to a new state/country if they didnt like the climate?
    No. I think I've been fairly clear on that point. I also don't think that a State/Nation need to regard entities that are outside their borders with the same privileges or protections as those within. There are some pretty sweet benefits that come from being a company in America, some from taxes(such as reliable police, fire, and health protection), some that come from our social and economic climate(stable working class, low violence levels, solid infrastructure). Companies don't always get these benefits when they move their operations to nations with cheap labor forces. They often have to employ massive private security forces, construct their own infrastructure, and use "company towns" to simulate a stable social environment.

    When companies rail against new regulation or new taxes, it often strikes me as cutting off their nose despite their face. They are objecting to one element of the climate they don't like, and willing to sacrifice the whole deal over it. I think that's rather ridiculous. I wouldn't run away from a home that feeds me, clothes me, treats me well and has likable parents because in addition to mowing the yard I'm now required to also take out the trash.

    Quote Originally Posted by goobernoob View Post
    what do you mean by that? it looks like its in conflict with itself.
    It's a pretty solid Libertarian talking point, that if you just let people do what they want that they'll act in the greater good because that's what will best cover their own asses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •