If Obama is re-elected, you'll be fired, CEO tells workers

[The Man]

The errors he has made don't provide support for the gross errors you've posted.
His main points are logical.......from a business perspective, taxation is a reduction of financial strengths and business models are addressed to accommodate the tax 'overhead' that affects both the corporations and the owners.
Your magic act of pulling wealth out of corporate America and it's owners through taxation with out possible downside is ludicrous.



BTW......you'd be more effective with more subtle ad hominems. Calling someone a fool and posting like one kinda negates your argument

I didnt break it down far enough for Tim ..I didnt think I would have to point out the obvious.

 

[The Man]

You can kid yourself all you want, TM clearly doesn't realize that operating capital isn't taxed. He clearly believes that this revenue is taxed before being used for wages or reinvestment... which explains his statement

WOW again...now we go from profits to operating capital...you either need to learn to read...or stop misquoting me.

But then again this may be a honest mistake with your logic...As I remember you stating in another thread that a man could voluntarily suck dick and not be gay

Incredible

 

[The Man]

And you can try to hide the fact that you aren't addressing the points he does make.

I think he just likes to argue...which is fine..but he could pick a better position

 

[The Man]

A business does not pay taxes on the money used by that business to pay for material or labor. So please explain why he thinks this is so.

I never said they did.
You either are.
A .... a liar
B... have very poor reading comprehension.
C...Like being punished by looking like a fool.


Sad thing is IMO its C...The easiest to fix but for you appears to be the most difficult.

 

[The Man]

I swear to god you are an idiot... .

Hows that working out for you. :24:

{Read above posts}


And again

:24:

 

[The Man]

Hell Tim..Stone broke it down for you rather well also...and you still dont get it.
Post 36 is spot on
Post 36..Great post Stone :thumbup

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...ells-workers&p=2260288&viewfull=1#post2260288

Suggested reading for those just coming to the thread

 

[Francis]

From your first post

The threat

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."


How is this a threat?

It would be no different than saying...if costs go up I am going to have to cut back.

Would you rather have him not let em know...then lay em off later?

He is doing the right thing....he is merely telling them..If Obama gets back in I will have to down size...and some may lose their jobs.

Not correct.. I guess you haven't been looking..

If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

This is the threat..

Why.. Well you will need to dig again.. Like I said, I am no school teacher, do your own looking..

 

[The Man]

Not correct.. I guess you haven't been looking..



This is the threat..

Why.. Well you will need to dig again.. Like I said, I am no school teacher, do your own looking..

How is that a threat.
Where is the "vote for Obama or face punitive actions?"...you know like being fired
He is saying if he has to suffer more taxes he will retire.
Are you suggesting he will retire to punish his employees?

Maybe this guy can use Tim for a tax adviser and not worry about it?

:24:

 

[Stone]

I am not sure about your taxation on business but I have a few questions for you..

How does that relate to Siegel's business as in why would investors matter in his case ?

Siegel is a capitalist who is deeply invested in his own business.
Wikipedia shows the parent company to be Central Florida Investments (CFI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_Resorts
It's a privately owned business ( http://westgateresorts.com/about/ ) not traded on a stock market.

This means it's a close group of investors with Siegel probably being a major if not majority investor.
He is not just the President and CEO, he's a powerful investor in the company, emphasis on investor
Being so.....in this particular case, it's his definition of reasonable returns on investment that defines his business model.....he models the company to suit himself as an investor-owner.
It's rather obvious if he feels his investment becomes less productive and doesn't meet his needs or demands, the business is likely to be either restructured or sold. It's his to do with as he and fellow owners decide.

How does that relate to Siegel's business as in why would investors matter in his case ?

In his example, he's a major stock holder with major influence in CFI.
It's rather obvious he feels his efforts are going to be taxed to the point of unacceptable levels of return.
His definition of unacceptable, not someone else's.


Is it a hollow threat? I don't know......But if Obama wins the election, I suspect a lot of curious onlookers to be watching Siegel.

 

[Stone]

...........................

Maybe this guy can use Tim for a tax adviser and not worry about it?

:24:

OK....that made me laugh....hard

 

[Alien Allen]

There is no way a business this large would ever consider being an S-corporation.

And my argument still stands. He is claiming that because of higher taxes it will jeopardize how much money he will have left for reinvestment and payroll where neither of these matter. These are both pretax expenditures The effective federal tax rate does not restrict how much cash he put's back into his company.

You think all businesses that have a $100k profit are C corps?

If so then you are nuts and it explains a lot

Besides you did not stipulate any of that. I brought it up. I suspect you were not even aware of the differences between the 2 types.

 

[Francis]

Siegel is a capitalist who is deeply invested in his own business.
Wikipedia shows the parent company to be Central Florida Investments (CFI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_Resorts
It's a privately owned business ( http://westgateresorts.com/about/ ) not traded on a stock market.

This means it's a close group of investors with Siegel probably being a major if not majority investor.
He is not just the President and CEO, he's a powerful investor in the company, emphasis on investor
Being so.....in this particular case, it's his definition of reasonable returns on investment that defines his business model.....he models the company to suit himself as an investor-owner.
It's rather obvious if he feels his investment becomes less productive and doesn't meet his needs or demands, the business is likely to be either restructured or sold. It's his to do with as he and fellow owners decide.




In his example, he's a major stock holder with major influence in CFI.
It's rather obvious he feels his efforts are going to be taxed to the point of unacceptable levels of return.
His definition of unacceptable, not someone else's.


Is it a hollow threat? I don't know......But if Obama wins the election, I suspect a lot of curious onlookers to be watching Siegel.

OK So the company is private and all the BoD is stacked with family and friends.. He has had the capacity to close down that company for years. No one can stop him except for his hunger for more money..

He has been sued by your government successfully and had to pay out lots of money for illegal stuff his company was doing ( do not call list ). I'm sure you read through all the Wiki crap.. He had a Mansion that went belly up and now there is talk he is trying to bring it back up..

One thing I did not see in the Wiki but found online was the fact his company is on the brink of bankruptcy ( Westgate Resorts Bankruptcy ). But hell which company in that type of industry is not on the edge of it at some point or another..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK Back to my original OP question, should anyone have the right to influence voting by using threats ?

I followed that up by saying either it be big business or unions if you want it to be right and left spectrum of the agenda ?

Now the Koch brother are doing a similar thing.. Is it OK to influence votes by using threats of any kind ?

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't think it was a threat but a warning. And I bet many, many, many, small businesses make it known to their employees that bad things might happen if so and so is elected. They may used different wording but the intent is there. And what is the difference between that and what the union bosses tell their minions?

 

[Francis]

I don't think it was a threat but a warning. And I bet many, many, many, small businesses make it known to their employees that bad things might happen if so and so is elected. They may used different wording but the intent is there. And what is the difference between that and what the union bosses tell their minions?

Allen anytime you discuss someone potentially losing their job, when they are not in a position to survive long afterwards, is considered a threat.. If you have an employee and tell them, "if you don't do this and that, well I will have to think about what you did" they will consider it a threat.. Whether you like it or not.. This is all semantics and we all know it.

The unions can sabre wag all they want but in the end they can't fire someone.. They can make life a living hell, which is just as bad, but if you already have a job at least here you can't be fired by the union. I have lived both points of view and neither is pretty.

But I do agree it needs to stop from both sides and that's my point..

In Canada we have non-partisan election voting, hence no one should interfere with the election process.. But we have seen more and more of all parties taking advantage of loopholes in our system to get around this..

Don't we send people to other countries to make sure elections are not tainted and frown on scandals just like this ?

 

[The Man]

OK So the company is private and all the BoD is stacked with family and friends.. He has had the capacity to close down that company for years. No one can stop him except for his hunger for more money..

He has been sued by your government successfully and had to pay out lots of money for illegal stuff his company was doing ( do not call list ). I'm sure you read through all the Wiki crap.. He had a Mansion that went belly up and now there is talk he is trying to bring it back up..

One thing I did not see in the Wiki but found online was the fact his company is on the brink of bankruptcy ( Westgate Resorts Bankruptcy ). But hell which company in that type of industry is not on the edge of it at some point or another..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK Back to my original OP question, should anyone have the right to influence voting by using threats ?

I followed that up by saying either it be big business or unions if you want it to be right and left spectrum of the agenda ?

Now the Koch brother are doing a similar thing.. Is it OK to influence votes by using threats of any kind ?

There is no threat.
He merely stated if Obama stays in and increases taxes his company will undergo a change.

Lets make a comparison.
Lets say a tobacco tax of 2 bucks a pack is in the air.
The "Boss" announces{during a break} that if this tax goes through that the company will downsize.{Not a threat}...its a heads up

In this case {thread subject} the "Boss" uses email as he has thousands of employees in different locations.,,saying if Obama stays in, his company will go through some changes {not a threat}...its a heads up.

Geez you act like its a threat....there is no threat.

With your logic the candidates themselves are threatening lol.....Example Romney could say "If you vote Obama, taxes will crush business..vote for your own best interest, vote for me for the next term."

Now if he said he would fire employees for voting Obama I would agree with you...but he didnt threaten to fire nor any other form of punishment.

 

[Francis]

There is no threat.

Sorry but yes there is a threat..

Again, you fail to recognize it and would rather try to prove a moot point over really debating the OP's point..

Personally for me, in Canada, a Republican win is actually better for MY BUSINESS I RUN..

Now either debate the OP, leave the fact the threat is there alone or find the truth it is a threat.

 

[The Man]

Sorry but yes there is a threat..

Again, you fail to recognize it and would rather try to prove a moot point over really debating the OP's point..

Personally for me, in Canada, a Republican win is actually better for MY BUSINESS I RUN..

Now either debate the OP, leave the fact the threat is there alone or find the truth it is a threat.

Sorry but yes there is a threat

Show the threat...you keep saying there is one but fail to provide it.

Where has he threatened his employees with a course of action if they vote Obama.

You shown earlier the mention of


"If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about."

How is that a threat?
Threatens to retire?
He is in his 70s by the way

 

[Minderella]

It's a veiled threat, but it's there.

 

[The Man]

It's a veiled threat, but it's there.

With what course of action

 

[Minderella]

He's essentially saying, that if so and so doesn't get elected that you'll be out of a job.

Sure, he's not coming right out and saying "If you don't vote for Romney, I'm going to fire you"....but he's vaguely influencing the way that his employers will vote, or at least maybe they'll think about voting a way they normally wouldn't have, or begin to influence other people in their lives to vote a different way, simply to keep a job.

I get that EVERYONE would be fired if Obama were to get re-elected, not just the people who voted for him (how would he find out anyways? If it were my I would just lie and say I voted Romney, even if I didn't if my job were at stake). But the veiled threat is still there. It's him trying to influence his employees by using their job as leverage.