General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

David Pakman Show
comments

Comments by "" (@1987BillyBob) on "I CONFRONTED a MAGA Republican...did NOT go well" video.

Ever thought that business was high for that person to begin with and the tax cuts allow them to invest? That is a concept.
4
@henrywestbrook9773 it isn't that easy. If taxes, regulations and goods are high in cost then a business cannot afford to hire more. This happened under Obamacare which led to many employers staying under 50 employees to prevent from paying healthcare benefits. You can't just simply hire them if you can't afford it.
4
@jrperez8283 I don't support single payer as that is also a problem. What we need is a free market system. The problems we have with healthcare now is too much government involvement. Get government out of healthcare and almost all of our problems will be solved.
2
He bailed because David was a jerk in the end. His last part on demand totally ignores the idea that the business owner most likely had the demand to begin with but could not invest until the tax cuts. The business owner was going with the numbers and Pakman went to two things 1. He claimed that hiring employees is tax deductible which is not true 2. He brought up demand making the statement that it was sad that people do not get that. Again, the owner could have had the demand but now could invest. Pakman being rude as opposed to sticking to the numbers shows he had not desire to have a legit discussion.
2
There was on insurrection to begin with, that is the point.
2
Both sides do that bud.
2
Did you throw "facts" or did you throw insults like Pakman did? Also, Pakman is completely wrong here on salaries being tax deductible.
2
@charlieevergreen3514 you can't deduct salaries from taxes unless they are independent contractors. Also, even if you could, it is not net zero, you will still be paying in the end. You also have payroll taxes to pay.
2
How did they get picked apart? Pakman is completely wrong that a salary is tax deductible. If you hire an employee you need to pay a payroll tax right away. So there is that.
1
@TerrenceManning-u8e look at Pakman's last response, it was rude. Pakman said 1. That salaries are completely tax deductible which is not true but more importantly 2. Said that, along with demand leads to hiring people and that it was sad that people did not know that. On that part he is calling that person stupid by basically saying "hey dumb, why don't you know that salaries are completely tax deductible and you need demand to hire, sad you are dumb" That is what Pakman is saying. How do you respond to that? You don't. I guess you can fall into the trap and say "Well Pakman, salaries are not tax deductible and we had the demand thus the tax cuts allowed us to invest for more workers" At that point policy discussion ends and attacks begins. That is what Pakman did. Chances are you do it as well.
1
@ttownfeen David does not run a business.
1
@exiledfrommyself it is more complicated than that.
1
@henrywestbrook9773 " Any business owner who tells you he can't hire people due to his taxes is an idiot or a liar. " Now you are acting like Pakman, resorting to name calling.
1
@originalno1087 America is not doing as great as it can be. If you support mediocracy then fine. I want what is the best. We had it great under Trump. Could it have been better? Sure. But things were better under Trump than they are under Biden. Only people complaining were the elites and spoiled kids on the left.
1
@user-dh5bnafe4b 1. You end up paying a payroll tax, so you are replacing one tax with another. Even at that, say you get a 30% deductible and you hire someone at $100,000 a year, you still pay $70,000. So you are still paying. 2. Many businesses have high demand but cannot hire more because of many barriers such as taxes. The guy bailed because Pakman was a jerk and basically called him stupid. Making the comment that is is sad people do not understand demand is calling that person stupid. Pakman is making the assumption that guy does not know what he is talking about or did not have the demand to begin with. So why keep engaging?
1
@user-dh5bnafe4b I agree the payroll tax is a dumb idea.
1
@michellehoyt8218 " if your business is warranting additional employees, then the revenues from sales and business PAY for the salaries and payroll tax, which is also deductible." It is not deductible to start. Next, when there are other expenses such as high regulations and taxes in the way, you can't hire more employees. That is what happened with Obamacare. Many employers kept below 50 employees to avoid paying healthcare benefits.
1
@Richard-sy1ej he was giving specifics and Pakman responded by being a jerk claiming you can deduct employee salaries (you can't) and that you need demand to hire claiming the guy was stupid for not knowing that. Chances are the man had demand but could not invest due to the tax cuts. Why respond to Pakman after that? Pakman asked for specifics, the man started to give them. And Pakman responded with basically saying the guy does not know anything. Really, how do you respond to that?
1
@Richard-sy1ej I am reading the comments. The other guy's response was 100% relevant. And no, employees are not tax deductible. They cost money. One of the largest expenses for a business is labor. And again, there is the payroll tax. How are employees tax deductible when you are paying a tax the moment you hire an employee? Have you ever heard of payroll taxes?
1
@Richard-sy1ej his business is his personal investment. It is his property. So yes, they are completely related. "Second, yes, all employee wages are considered fully deductible for small businesses. Seriously. Look it up" One, look it up where? You telling me to "look it up" is not an argument. Point me to the tax law. Next, there is still a cost associated with hiring an employee. You even admitted that at the very least with the payroll tax. But are you saying that if someone hires an employees that via all the tax deduction the next cost will be zero? Is that what you are saying? If so then I am sorry but you are wrong.
1
@Richard-sy1ej "I'd recommend actually doing research before demonstrating that you're woefully uninformed." If you have done the research then you should be able to point to me the tax laws that says that wages are tax deductible. And again, even if that is true, there is still a cost associated with hiring and paying an employee. Even if there are tax deductions, the net cost is not zero. You are still paying. You know, driving and owning a company vehicle has tax deductions as well. However, even with that there is still a cost associated with having one and driving it.
1
@Richard-sy1ej I can give credit where credit is due, I will look into that tax law deeper to get a full story. I am not seeing an actual rate of deduction nor the actual law in full, and even with several deductions, there is still a cost of doing business. It isn't that if you hire a person it isn't like the tax deduction offset the cost of hiring an employee. I have made that point in other comments. So I can admit I am wrong on salaries being tax deductible, and I left the possibility open. It does not offset the fact that in the end there will be a cost. "Yes, there are costs associated with running a business. Which is why business expenses, such a hiring an employee, should increase income by more than the expense amount." I agree "In fact, you've now just realized and confirmed Pakman's point that basing a hiring decision on a tax rate, rather than their ability to provide a net gain in income, would indicate a gross lack of business understanding on the part of the commenter he was engaging with originally" Again, completely false all around. I have said that in the end, even with a tax deduction there is still a cost in hiring an employee. I made the comparison of a company car. A company car is tax deductible. But in the end you are still paying for gas, insurance, the car itself, maintenance, etc. Even with a tax deduction if you can't afford all of that you cannot afford a company car. Same with this employer. Even with a tax deduction they still could not afford an employee until another the Trump tax cuts came in which now they have enough income to afford the employee. That is a concept you are completely ignoring that I have brought up many times and Pakman also ignored as well. Even with the tax deduction, they still could not afford an employee. The Trump tax cuts allowed them to do it. Is that so hard to understand?
1
@Richard-sy1ej And that leads back to the whole point that Pakman was a jerk. He made the assumption that 1. The guy did not know that salaries are tax deductible 2. That there was no demand Chances are the guy did know that salaries are tax deductible and that there was demand. But even with both they could not afford a new employee. The Trump tax cuts gave them the resources to afford a new employee. Ever thought of that? This is where I find people on the left to be crazy and jerks. They call others stupid but do not look at the full picture. You even said this ". Which is why business expenses, such a hiring an employee, should increase income by more than the expense amount." Ok, and did you ever think that even with the tax deduction that the expense of hiring the employee was not going to increase income due to other taxes the business owner was experiencing? Ever think of that? I am being serious here. Also, I am not running away from this conversation as you can see.
1
@Richard-sy1ej I will give you another example on my part. I am a sports official doing high school and college in two sports. One I do lower level college with the hopes to move up to DI and make actual money. As such I am an independent contractor. I get a 1099 every year. I know my tax breaks I get. Mileage on my car going to games, if I buy shoes, a gym membership, etc. To move up I go to these camps to get training as also get looked at by supervisors to get hired. They cost money. Went to one recently, $900 plus airfare and car. If my income tax, or property tax, or even sales taxes were lowered I would have more money to invest in those camps to get noticed more. I could have money to hire a personal trainer and nutritionist to be healthy and athletic on the field, a desire by supervisors at the higher level. I can pay for a large TV to watch game film in higher quality. That flow of money is not associated with the games I work and I get a 1099 for. However, if taxes were lower in other aspect of my life, I will have more income to divert to sports officiating. So even with all the tax breaks I can do as an independent contractor, I am still limited in funds due to taxes and expenses in other aspects of my life. Same with this business owner. Sure, hiring an employee may lead to a tax deduction, but it will not offset the cost of hiring them in general. And due to other expenses they could not afford one. They could not afford one until the tax cuts which gave them more resources to now hire one. Here you are siding with Pakman for calling the guy stupid while not realizing there are many moving parts here. Say you lowered that guy's property tax, now they have income to invest elsewhere.
1
@Richard-sy1ej let us give another example, Herman Cain when he was CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He had a nice discussion with Clinton in 1994 related to Clinton's healthcare bill. You can find it on Youtube. Actually, it is an example of what we are missing in politics these days. Cain laid out his numbers, and talked to other business owners as well in relation to Clinton's healthcare bill. Even with all the assistance and breaks from the government, many businesses simply could not afford to pay healthcare benefits to their employees under Clinton's bill. The numbers were published and Clinton's bill did not pass. That is an example that these business owners do crunch the numbers. They just don't take the simple approach that you and Pakman are doing by saying "salaries are tax deductible, how do you not know that, derp". They crunch the numbers and look at all variables. Sure, salaries may be tax deductible, but if the business owner is paying a lot in other expenses then it is a moot point.
1
@Richard-sy1ej also, final point. If it is true that this man did not know salaries are tax deductible, I am sure he did, but say he did not. Shouldn't this be a sign the tax code is too complicated? Pakman said it is sad that people do not know it. I know many average people that do not know the tax write offs they have. Such as college students can write off their text books they buy. Pakman ripped on Trump for not paying taxes and Trump saying it was him being smart. Well, maybe that is a sign our tax code is too complex where the average person does not know what they have in terms of tax write offs? Ever thought that?
1
@martiboxwell9680 how did I get wrecked? I gave more details. I agreed with some of his points, but he is oversimplifying the issue. Even if you get a tax deduction on salaries if you still cannot afford a new employee because of other expenses it is a moot point. That is the issue, the business owner was able to afford a new employee because tax cuts gave them the resources to do it. Pakman and Richard are assuming that 1. The business owner did not know that salaries are tax deductible. Chances are they did now 2. That there was no demand for the new employee when chances are there was, it was just that the business owner could not afford one due to other expenses. Both cases are oversimplifying the issues. Yes, people do invest when they receive a tax cut, including business owners. If I receive a tax cut and had more money I will invest in myself. What do you think people do with those tax cuts? Pocket it?
1
@martiboxwell9680 "You talk about david making assumptions but you made the assumption that this guy had the demand and was already waiting for the tax break to hire. Again, nobody hires employees because of a tax break. NONE. ZERO" Ok, so what do people do with those tax cuts? What would you do if your company received a tax cut? Pocket the money or invest in your company? Most business owners invest in their company because that is their life. So are you saying if your business expenses went down because of a tax cut you would just pocket the money and not invest it back in the company? You would not at least give raises to your current employees? Or buy a new good? You would just pocket the money?
1
@martiboxwell9680 and please tell me, how did I get wrecked? You are asking like Richard and Pakman. You are grossly oversimplifying a complex issue here. You are saying that if a business receives a tax cut they will not invest in it but instead pocket the money. And you are saying that is the case for all businesses.
1
@martiboxwell9680 ok, right away I can tell you are off. To start, what is a "decent wage"? Who decides that? Also, I never said tax cuts alone create jobs. I agree there is a demand aspect. If demand is not there a company won't hire. They may even fire someone. However, you can't hire someone if you can't afford it. There are many components to the equation here. That is what I am saying. With this business owner they could have had the demand but could not afford an employee. The tax cut created the ability for them to. Why are you not accepting that? And yes, after the tax cuts businesses did invest it back into their company. Worker participation went up, unemployment went down despite more people willing to work. And wages went up even though the number of workers went up. You are talking about demand, when supply is up typically prices go down. Worker participation was up but wages also went up during the Trump years. The numbers don't lie.
1
@martiboxwell9680 where are my assumptions? Why would Pakman make such a statement unless he was assuming things? He said that 1. Salaries are tax deductible 2. Business hire based on demand And he ended it on the comment on that it is sad that people do not know that. What makes him think that business owner did not know that salaries are deductible? And what makes Pakman think that business owner did not have the demand to begin with? Pakman was making an assumption.
1
@martiboxwell9680 also, the fact that you would rather pocket the tax cuts as opposed to invest in your business makes me question if you are a business owner or your thought process. Business owners, especially small ones, see their business as their personal investment in life. They dedicate a lot of time and effort to it so they will invest in it to see it grow.
1
@martiboxwell9680 "Do you know how to use google? Heres what you need to do. Google which party raises taxes and which party lowers taxes." Uh, the whole "google it" argument. Instead of you providing me actual sources you simply tell me to google it. It is all becoming so clear now. What should I google? Daily Wire? It is sad but you are acting like Pakman and Richard now. You are grossly oversimplifying a complex issue. And in doing so you are telling me to "google it". Here, you want to talk about jobs and political party. Look up in FRED.....well wait......do you know what FRED is? It is the Federal Reserve Economic Data with data coming from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. It has a lot of comprehensive data related to the economy. In one of my MBA courses we had to look up data on FRED and write about it. The point of the project was to know where to find reliable data. Anyway, that aside, look up in FRED All Employees: Total Nonfarm by state. You can by typing " FRED All employees: total nonfarm by _____". Look up states like FL, TX and GA and compare to MI, NY and CA and look at their pre-covid and post covid numbers. Which states reached their pre-covid numbers first? Spoiler alert, they were FL, TX and GA. What party were their governors? You tell me to educate myself when all you tell me to do is "google it" without giving me any specific sources to look at. Along with that there are many other factors beyond jobs at play. Wages, interest rates, cost of living, etc. Fun fact, if you look up "Homeownership Rate in the United States" in FRED look at the trend. From 2008 to 2016 ti dropped around 6%. Under Trump it grew around 5%. Again, I am pointing you to a specific source as opposed to the vague "google it" you tell me to do. Jobs are great, but if cost of living is high along with pay being low it is irrelevant. In the 70s job growth was high, so was inflation. It eventually led to stagflation.
1
@martiboxwell9680 so you tell me to educate myself but you do nto provide me with any sources. You simply say "google it".
1
@martiboxwell9680 "Those tax breaks go into the owners pocket more than it does the employee and thats the point." I don't buy it. And there is way more to it than that. Consumers see a tax break they buy more. That increases demand. Business owners get a tax break they an invest. It does not always mean in the form of employees. It can be with new technology to increase productivity, there is a lot to it.
1
@martiboxwell9680 "Ah yes. The proverbial backpedal. “I never said tax breaks alone create jobs”. You did above. Now you lie." When did I ever say tax breaks alone led to job creation? Never. Point to me the comment and quote it. I have said demand is a part of it. I have said that in criticizing Pakman's assumption. I said that with that business owner demand was most likely there but they did not have the resources to hire more until the tax breaks. If you are going to resort to lying and acting like Pakman that is fine. I won't run away, I will just call you out on it like I called you out on other actions here such as you telling me to "google it" but not telling me what and claiming I need to educate myself.
1
@martiboxwell9680 "You’re assumptions are in capitalized letters so you wouldnt miss them. “CHANCES ARE THEY DID KNOW.” and “CHANCES ARE THERE WAS”. Those are your words, not mine. You did this right after accusing others of making assumptions. Immediately after. Wow" Sigh, you see, I am not making a blunt claim. I am open to the possibility of being wrong. Pakman made his statement on the idea that the guy did not know demand means the need for more employees and Pakman also made his statement on the point of salaries being deductible as if the business owner did not know that. I can say that because after Pakman made those statements on demand and salaries he ended with the comment that it is sad that people do not know this. He is literally saying that business owner does not know those things. I am saying there is a chance he does. If evidence comes out that Pakman was correct then fine. But Pakman is making his statement is if he knows already. I am saying I do not know, but based on what I have experience the chances are high the business owner did have the demand and also knows what their tax deductions are.
1
@MiguelCruz-oz7km "Except that if the guy legitimately had demand he couldn't meet without the new employee, why wouldn't he have been able to pay the employee's salary based on the additional revenue being generated by hiring the new employee?" Sigh.....because he could not afford to other expenses, period. If he would have hired a new employee it would have cost him more money. The tax cuts led to lower expenses elsewhere so he could not have the revenue to hire someone . I work with customers in many industries with my careers. They all face financial challenges. Why don't they all just buy supercomputers? Why don't they all just buy top of the line equipment? Heck, it will increase productivity and make things easier. Many business owners work 80 hours a week, or even more. I will always remember the owner of the business I worked at during my undergrad years had to leave his daughter's birthday party on a Sunday because the deep freeze broke. Or when someone does not show up to work he had to fill in. Well, why doesn't he hire 1000 employees? Because he could not afford it. Those are challenges business owners face daily. The reality is that the Trump tax cuts, and the Trump presidency in general reduce the burden from the federal government on businesses allowing them to operate more freely and the economy was great because of it. And to go to your earlier comment on republican vs democrat, I am neither. I am a moderate. I have been highly critical of many republicans. I don't play team politics like you seem to be doing. That is why I can get into details on my arguments and you get vague by telling me to "google it".
1
@Richard-sy1ej I can admit when I am wrong when new information comes to me. In fact, I have stated in my comments I could have been wrong. I am open to change. I am willing to learn here and not be hard headed. I am not trying to pivot anything because my stance still stays as I have said many times, even with a tax deduction the owner cannot simply afford a new employee. I gave you the example of a company car. You have tax deductions on that. But in the end you are still paying. You are still seeing a net loss. I have stated that from the beginning. That even with a tax deduction there will still be a net loss. Please, if we are going to have a civil conversation here, present my argument fairly. "Pakman was literally saying that salaries were deductible and you came in strong saying "THAT'S NOT TRUE PAKMAN BAD!", without actually doing the research. Thus half the justification for your position is gone" Sigh.....again, present my side of the argument fairly. My reasoning for Pakman being a jerk was that he wrote to the guy that salaries are tax deductible and that you need demand to hire people. And he ended saying it was sad that people did not know that. He is saying that business owner does not know those two things without even knowing him in general. And thus calling that business owner stupid. Answer these two questions. 1. How does Pakman know that guy does not know that salaries are tax deductible? 2. How does Pakman know that guy is not seeing high demand where another employee will help? Please, answer those two questions and you will see why Pakman is being a jerk. "Second, again, all you've done when talking about business expenses is to actually prove Pakman's point. A successful business is going to make sure that when they add a new expense (even a deductible one), then the income generated from that expense should be paid for in full via the income that expense generates. If I hire a new employee and that costs me $80k a year, then if I'm not generating $80k of profit off that hire, then WHY would I hire that employee?" I 100% agree. What have I written that suggests otherwise? Please quote anything I written. I have written from the beginning that even with a tax deduction hiring an employee cost money. And if they can't afford it they won't hire. As I said with a company car. It has tax deductions. But even with that it has a cost. I did not prove Pakman's point. My issue with Pakman was that he was being a jerk. Actually you are proving my point. Why does Pakman feel this business owner does not have the demand? Why does Pakman feel that after the tax cuts it is now worth it to hire a new employee? Why are you ignoring these points? "That was Pakman's point, and the way you're essentially repeating that without realizing it only reinforces that he was correct - which undermines your second argument against him, and thus your entire argument against him is gone." Sigh.....it doesn't undermine my argument because again, my point is that Pakman was being a jerk. He was saying that you need demand to hire as if that business owner was not seeing the demand. And Pakman said it is sad that people do not know that when that business owner most likely does know that. Pakman is making a claim about the business owner without knowing anything about him. "Finally, as an additional point, the biggest tax cut that occurred under Donald's proclaimed tax cuts was for corporate tax rates*. This person's small business almost certainly does *not fall under that banner, and as such would have seen much less difference as a result of the law. Furthermore, the tax rate cuts for everything EXCEPT corporate tax rates revert at the end of 2025 - so this guy would be right back in the same (theoretical) problem situation at that time." What makes you think the business owner does not know that and is looking 4 or 5 steps ahead? That in hiring new employees he had a plan set up? Now you are acting like Pakman here as you feel that this business owner does not know any of this. "The poster Pakman was talking to ran away when faced with facts and brought up stuff completely irrelevant to the conversation" No, he left because Pakman was a jerk by calling him stupid for supposedly not knowing certain thing and making an assumption about his business. Are you that dense to not see that? How do you respond to what Pakman wrote? Pakman drew a conclusion about that man and their business by stating that man does not know that salaries are tax deductible and saying that man does not have the demand to hire more employees. So how do you respond to that? You don't.
1
@Richard-sy1ej it is the same with you. You are completely misrepresenting my arguments so I have to spend time pointing that out and this becomes unproductive. With that business owner his response would have been to show Pakman he knows how to operate a business and he has the demand and it diverts the conversation from the original point. it is a tactic the left plays all the time. Just like you are doing here. You are trying to divert from the original point that in the end Pakman was being a jerk and thus the guy walked away. He did not bail, he knew what Pakman was doing and walked away knowing Pakman was going to play games of divert and call him stupid.
1
@martiboxwell9680 where am I lying? This is what you are resorting to which is predictable. I called you out and then gave you specific sources to look at and this is how you respond.
1
@Richard-sy1ej " I'm not entirely sure how I'm misrepresenting your arguments." Sigh.....as I said. I was open to the possibility that salaries can be tax deductible. You pointed to me that they were which I was willing to admit I was wrong. You are painting the picture that I was not willing to admit that. But the bigger issue is this, it was that Pakman was a jerk. That was my initial argument. In that Pakman is saying that salaries are tax deductible and that you hire with demand is high. And Pakman ended in saying it is sad that people do not know this. Pakman saying that is saying that man does not know that salaries are tax deductible and also is saying that demand is not high for him, or assuming that. My point is this, Pakman is claiming that the business owner does not know that salaries are tax deductible. And Pakman's claim is that the business owner does not know that you only hire when demand is high. And after that Pakman called the person dumb in saying it is sad that people do not know that. Pakman is making those claims while knowing nothing about this business owner. Pakman does not know if that business owner knows if salaries are tax deductible or not. And again, even at that, there is still a cost in hiring an employee. And Pakman knows nothing about the demand associated with that person's business. I am going to keep it short because you are gone off on the deep end here and we need to get back to the beginning as you keep misrepresenting my argument.
1
@Richard-sy1ej I never run away, I was not getting notices in my emails of responses. The tax cuts allow this person to hire someone new as they had more resources to hire someone.
1
@Richard-sy1ej what am I denying? Here is the reality, that business owner had the demand for a new worker but could not afford one. The tax cut allowed them to as the tax cut allowed them to have more resources to hire a new employee. That is the reality.
1
@Richard-sy1ej Pakman is not correct. The business owner knows their situation. Pakman's only counter argument was to say you get a tax write off when you hire employees and then saying it is sad that some people do not know that, as if the business owner did not know it. Chances are they did. But even with a tax write off you are still spending money. The tax write off does not make hiring the employee a net zero in gain/loss. The business owner will still be losing money and thus could not afford to hire a new employee. He could after Trump's tax cuts allowed for him to have the resources to hire someone.
1
@Richard-sy1ej what was disproven? Again, the business owner, because of the tax cuts was able to afford to hire an employee.
1
But yet people had more money, so I guess you recheck your math or learn basic math.
1
@PROGRAMMINGFLAW-w1m You are talking about you and the few people you know. Most had more money because of the tax cuts. Also, 80K then is more than 100K now because of inflation.
1
Salaries are not always tax deductible as you have payroll tax to counter that. Also, not every state was harmed by the SALT tax. And yes, a lower income tax can help invest in one's business as instead of paying more in taxes they can now invest in their business more. Reading Pakman's response the guy did not bail, it is just that Pakman is so incredibly wrong there is no reason to keep going. Pakman has now clue how a business is ran. His whole point on a salary is tax deductible is simply false because even if that is try the cost of the employee will be more than the so called tax deductible. If not businesses will hire a lot more employees.
1
@MrCanucklehead75 no, he is completely wrong. 1. Salaries are not completely tax deductible. You will end up paying and you have the payroll tax 2. David said that demand leads to more hires and became rude is claiming that person did not know that. Ever thought the demand was there and the tax cuts led to more hires?
1
Because what Pakman is saying is completely false.
1
@sandmanbub salaries are not fully tax deductible. The only salaries that are deductible are independent contractors. If you run a business and hire someone you can't deduct their salary. In fact, you pay a higher tax in now you have to pay a payroll tax.
1
Pakman became a jerk at the end eliminating any policy discussion.
1
You do know that Pakman is completely wrong here?
1
@damarebanks9762 I have an MBA on my end. Also, Pakman has zero experience in running a business. There are many successful business owners who have no degree. There are many successful business owners who have an engineering degree and not a business degree. They went through the challenges of crunching the numbers. Pakman has not. That is what matters.
1
I have no problem getting rid of medicare and social security. I can manage my money batter than the government. I have no problem getting rid of OT as well.
1
This is a terrible video. To start, salaries are not tax deductible, you have payroll taxes to deal with. Also, even if it is true, if the tax cut is lower than the salary it is a moot point. Next, the tax cuts created demand.
1
Pakman went to emotion
1
The fact that Pakman things salaries are tax deductible shows how ignorant he is. One, it is not true as you have payroll taxes. Next, even if it is try is the salary is higher than the reduction in taxes it is a moot point.
1
David is completely wrong here.
1
Pakman did an ad hominem here.
1
What logic? Pakman is completely wrong and became a jerk at the end.
1
The economy sucks right now. We should not be sending money to Ukraine.
1
@Ceen328 I know how it works. Funny how the economy was great under Trump and sucks under Biden. And why are we sending money to Ukraine? Why are we funding another none ending war?
1
What facts did Pakman bring?
1
What math did Pakman have? He ended up being a jerk in the end
1
@rockdinosaur8619 ok, I will give details and see you run away. Pakman claimed he was asking for details. The guy gave details with his numbers. Pakman's response led to him saying 1. Hiring employees is tax deductible which is essentially false. 2. And this is where he is a jerk, Pakman brought up demand and how demand leads to hiring more employees and it is sad that people do not get that. On that second point, Pakman was not asking anything. He was calling the guy stupid by saying he did not understand demand. However, chances are he had the demand but after the tax cuts he was able to invest to hire more. Pakman's comment was rude making him a jerk. He made an assumption about someone, something he always does. So why keep engaging? And how is bringing up demand and making an assumption math?
1
@rockdinosaur8619 now run away now.
1
@honestreviewer3283 in his last response. Pakman first asked for specifics. The man provided it. Pakman's response was to say that 1. Salaries are tax deductible 2. There needs to be a demand to hire more And ended with saying it was sad that people do not know this. Pakman is assuming that this man does not know that salaries are tax deductible. And even at that, hiring employees still cost money. If you can't afford it even after the tax deduction you can't afford it. And two, Pakman is assuming the demand was not there when it could have been. And after that Pakman basically called the guy stupid for supposedly not knowing those two things without even knowing what that business owner is experience and their knowledge. Pakman was being a jerk. How do you respond to that? You don't.
1
No, Pakman was flat out rude in his last comment. He dabbled in the numbers a little bit, then he completely lied about hiring an employee being tax deductible. He ended on the note of demand saying it was sad people do not get that. What is sad is that chances are the business owner already had the demand to begin with but could not invest until the tax cut.
1
@MrCanucklehead75 I literally broke down how Pakman was rude. He was calling the person stupid for supposedly not knowing that demand pushes for more hires. Again, ever thought the demand was there and the tax cuts led to more hires?
1
Pakman does not even remember when this happened. He is losing his memory like Biden along with making stories up.
1
Maybe because you ended up acting like a jerk like Pakman did.
1
Uh, nice lie bud.
1
CEO's just don't pocket the money because their pay is heavily based off of the value of the shares. If they pocket the money they are basically taking money away from shareholders and the shareholders will vote them out. Not to be rude, but if you do not understand the basics of business you need to step aside and let adults talk.
1
Pretty much how it went. Pakman basically called the guy stupid in the end. No wonder he left.
1
Ok, I am here as a Trump supporter. What do you want to debate? I feel Pakman is both wrong and being a jerk here. Him being a jerk led to the other guy leaving. So what do you want to debate?
1
@bryanhill1406 "Do you realise that the Colorodo courts founds Trump took part in sedition, and that part of their ruling was not overturned in the federal courts?" You do realize that has no legal standing as that would be a federal offense and would require federal changes which did not happen. "any comments on the reporting that Trump is falling asleep and shitting his pants in court?" Ok, I can see I am dealing with a child.
1
@bryanhill1406 I am not done
1
Pakman became a jerk at the end and was completely wrong. Why argue with that?
1
There are many flaws here. To start, the business owner was sticking to the number. Pakman's last response dabbled with the numbers a little bit. Then he went to making the false claim that hiring an employee is tax deductible to begin with. Then he makes the very rude comment about demand saying that it is sad some people don't get it. What Pakman does not understand is that the business owner already had the demand but could not invest in a new employee until after the tax cuts.
1
Funny, I have reached out to Pakman many times on such issues and he ignores me. Chances are this is all made up. Why would he now decide to confront "MAGA Republicans" but not me?
1
Pakman ended up being a jerk so the other guy moved on. Pakman making the claim that hiring an employee is tax deductible is completely false. But he was a jerk in bring up demand and saying it was sad people do not get that. Ever thought the demand was there to begin with and the man now has money to invest after the tax cuts?
1
@PuffDaMunkey he did not call out. Here is how it went Pakman: can you give details The business owner proceeds to give details Pakman: You are stupid How do you respond to that? You don't.
1
Because it is false. Even if salaries are tax deductible the business owner is still paying and also have the added cost of the payroll tax. Compare to a tax deductible item, a company car. Sure, you can write it off. But you are still going to pay gas, insurance, damages, etc. The tax deductibles are not a net zero, you will pay. So even with a tax deduction the business owner will still pay and in that case they still can't afford the cost.
1
True, along with that you have the payroll tax. That is why his argument is flawed and why he resorted to being a jerk. He said that it was sad that people did not understand the issue of demand. Chances are the demand was there, but the owner did not have the money to invest until the tax cut.
1