But now my interest is stirred and I think I'll probe the idea.
LOL. And submit the RFI (Request for Information) response in crayon! I love it!Put the S Corp in your kid's names with you as the "silent partner".
Not really. I can't own more than 27% of the business in the terminal. In no circumstance is 27% a monopoly.
Put the S Corp in your kid's names with you as the "silent partner".
I don't believe for a moment that Fedex's non existent benefits has anything to do with inability to afford. But, it is what it is and I wouldn't go back to UPS even if I could.
Because I'm not advocating for anything. The retirement of my workers is not my responsibility, nor is it that of Fedex and they are more than happy to pocket that money.Why are you putting it on Fedex's shoulders to fund your employee pension costs? You are the business owner making it your responsibility. Don't advocate for something that you aren't willing to do.
Because I'm not advocating for anything. The retirement of my workers is not my responsibility, nor is it that of Fedex and they are more than happy to pocket that money.
Yes, but not very effectively given my location. in a more metropolitan area that happens more frequently.But can you own 25% in one bldg and 25% in another?
Island
Why do you dislike this post? Need more proof that it's rigged?
How about this. I have 10 routes of the sixty in the building. Guess what would happen if I were to buy out another contractor with 10 routes. The company wouldn't let me do it. They don't want me to become"too successful" because it leaves themselves vulnerable. What if I pulled all my trucks tomorrow and quit? It happened not too far from here right after peak. It's a mess. Or what if I owned the entire building and my employees voted in the union? The Ground side has no RLA to hide behind. We could be organized building by building if only one contractor was in each building. As it stands now in our building, the union would have to organize the drivers of seven different contractors.
It's rigged with a facade of independence that melds with the tested gray area of exactly how much control the company can exert without violating "contractor" status. They've been honing it for years.
I wasn't. I was using it to show one of the ways businesses have used to decrease compensation over the years. 401(k) plans were always meant to supplement other retirement provisions. Over time, 401(k) became THE plan. Note I said one of the ways. Others include the stagnation of wages, increase in individual contributions to health insurance and intense focus on increased productivity. You know, cutting routes, telematics, that kind of thing, all the while making record profits. Start rolling all these facts together along with executive compensation, and the case for out of control income inequality is pretty easy to see. Now, if someone believes that all of that is fine and that apparent inequality is free markets at work and a healthy and natural thing, then that is his or her right. I think most people will have a hard time coming to that conclusion.
Oh brett, just stop yourself. The wonderful billionaires and captains of industry puked all over themselves in 2007 and it was all us little people who had to bail the out. These wizards of Wall Street just couldn't help themselves and as long as we allow them to remain "too big to fail" they will continue to get drunk on their own importance. Didn't see any of those fine stalwarts of industry racing to bail out GM and Chrysler, did you?
Yeah, Wall Street was just the innocent bystander.I maintain both that the 2007 financial collapse had more to do with government meddling in the markets than the markets themselves, and that both GM and Chrysler should not be in business right now.
How convenient is that?! We owed it to Wall Street to bail them out because we the government were "meddling". Do you really believe the ridiculous things you post?I maintain both that the 2007 financial collapse had more to do with government meddling in the markets than the markets themselves, and that both GM and Chrysler should not be in business right now.
Owed? You mean owe. The bail out hasn't stopped.How convenient is that?! We owed it to Wall Street to bail them out because we the government were "meddling". Do you really believe the ridiculous things you post?
Okay, I did that.Chicken before the egg.
How did those evil Wall Street people get to bundle and sell all those housing loans that people had but could never afford.??
Of course the Government never stuck their noses in and supported lawsuits against Banks with no risky or low income loans!
Google Obama Chicago Acorn vs Citybank--1994
No Gov social Engineering--no bad loans to sell!!