1. #1701
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    She could choose not to be a shitty owner of a company, choice, liberty, consistency, all that, and grow her company to even greater heights. Or be a modern day libertarian, a walking contradiction.
    You mean one of the best-run companies around, where they have long offered employees healthcare, and paid well above minimum wage?

    Once again, this is the problem, it's a company that is fucking famous for treating their employees very well.

  2. #1702
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It would cause the sole owner of In&Out to start to sell part of her family-owned company, just to pay for the success of that family-owned company.
    They could always disburse those shares to their employees, who also caused that company to be successful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  3. #1703
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    They could always disburse those shares to their employees.
    Yes, the answer to authoritarian socialism, is... socialism.

    This is the point, you guys want this to happen. You want to break up companies like that, it's been your mission all along.

  4. #1704
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, the answer to authoritarian socialism, is... socialism.

    This is the point, you guys want this to happen. You want to brak up companies like that, it's been your mission all along.
    Sorry, how is employees owning shares of the company they invest their labor in "braking (sic) up companies"?

    If your issue is that you don't want the company's shares to be sold off as a result of it being successful, then keep it within the company. Or are employees not part of the company?
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  5. #1705
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You mean one of the best-run companies around, where they have long offered employees healthcare, and paid well above minimum wage?

    Once again, this is the problem, it's a company that is fucking famous for treating their employees very well.
    Than it won't be a problem for her. Why you keep bringing it this up for someone who won't have this problem because she can run a company so well? If she's so good to get your praise, she'll adapt and thrive. Oh right, that contradictory libertarian mindset, where she is so successful and great and running her company, but simultaneously who's destined to lose her company.

  6. #1706
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, the answer to authoritarian socialism, is... socialism.

    This is the point, you guys want this to happen. You want to break up companies like that, it's been your mission all along.
    We are whatever you decide to paint is so your empty arguments have merit.

    They don’t. Just empty words for an empty suit.

  7. #1707
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Sorry, how is employees owning shares of the company they invest their labor in "braking (sic) up companies"?

    If your issue is that you don't want the company's shares to be sold off as a result of it being successful, then keep it within the company. Or are employees not part of the company?
    Once again, you're proving my point for me. This was always about the destruction of companies.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    Than it won't be a problem for her. Why you keep bringing it this up for someone who won't have this problem because she can run a company so well? If she's so good to get your praise, she'll adapt and thrive. Oh right, that contradictory libertarian mindset, where she is so successful, but simultaneously who's destined to lose her company.
    Once again, the math was provided. That's simply not a viable option, because you are literally taxing her out of the company.

  8. #1708
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, you're proving my point for me. This was always about the destruction of companies.
    Employees owning shares of a company is destroying the company, apparently.

    Not seeing the issue here - unless your issue is that the other people who were involved in the company's success might become entitled to a portion of that success.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  9. #1709
    Quote Originally Posted by unfilteredJW View Post
    We are whatever you decide to paint is so your empty arguments have merit.

    They don’t. Just empty words for an empty suit.
    I provided mountains of evidence, as well as math and statistics. Can you refute an ounce of it?

    Nope, because you don't want to.

    Just like how Republicans have always wanted to ban abortions, and disenfranchise minorities, Democrats and progressives have wanted to close companies down.

  10. #1710
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, you're proving my point for me. This was always about the destruction of companies.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Once again, the math was provided. That's simply not a viable option, because you are literally taxing her out of the company.
    I wouldn't go that far. The company I work for, the previous owners that I work for sold it to the employees of the company and we are more successful then ever. Granted, this is only one datapoint but saying that would cause the destruction of a company is a hyperbolic.

  11. #1711
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, you're proving my point for me. This was always about the destruction of companies.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Once again, the math was provided. That's simply not a viable option, because you are literally taxing her out of the company.
    She has the choice not to be taxed out of her company by adapting. she has the personal freedom to sink or swim. Why are you so against people's freedom?

  12. #1712
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Employees owning shares of a company is destroying the company, apparently.
    You want to force her to sell her company, because it's run so well.

  13. #1713
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    This was always about the destruction of companies.
    How is a company transferring ownership from a single person, who inherited the company to begin with, to the people who work there and generate value for the company "destroying" it? I mean, they kinda have a vested interest in not destroying the company they're not part owners in, no?

  14. #1714
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    She has the choice not to be taxed out of her company by adapting. she has the personal freedom to sink or swim. Why are you so against people's freedom?
    It's not freedom, because the government is forcing her.

    That's like saying the woman is free to just not have the baby, and let it stay in her belly, when abortion is banned.

    So tell me, how exactly does she adapt, given the math and data that was already provided?

    Let's see it.

  15. #1715
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You want to force her to sell her company, because it's run so well.
    But the company would still be doing well. She just wouldn't be deriving disproportionate value from it versus the other people working at that company.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  16. #1716
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    How is a company transferring ownership from a single person, who inherited the company to begin with, to the people who work there and generate value for the company "destroying" it? I mean, they kinda have a vested interest in not destroying the company they're not part owners in, no?
    God damn, cheering on forced socialism.

    Love it.

    You never did show how much growth in her other assets she would need to have, in order to keep her company.

    Here's a hint... it's a lot.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    But the company would still be doing well. She just wouldn't be deriving disproportionate value from it versus the other people working at that company.
    Nope, you want to tax people out of their own property.

  17. #1717
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not freedom, because the government is forcing her.

    That's like saying the woman is free to just not have the baby, and let it stay in her belly, when abortion is banned.

    So tell me, how exactly does she adapt, given the math and data that was already provided?

    Let's see it.
    It is freedom, I've provided the math and the I've provided the evidance.
    You are against freedom. Enjoy!!!

  18. #1718
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    It is freedom, I've provided the math and the I've provided the evidance.
    You are against freedom. Enjoy!jh
    Where is your math?

    "She has the freedom to give her employees her company, or the freedom for us to take it from here."

  19. #1719
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    God damn, cheering on forced socialism.
    As opposed to cheering forced capitalism?

    Didn't see an answer there so I'll assume your claim of "destroying" the company was, as you call everyone else's claims a "lie".

  20. #1720
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Where is your math?

    "She has the freedom to give her employees her company, or the freedom for us to take it from here."
    That's not what I said. The evidence is there. You are against freedom. Enjoy!

Posting Permissions

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