Another Socialist Outed As Wealthy

[RazorX]

France's new Socialist president owns three holiday homes in the Riviera resort of Cannes, it emerged today.

Francois Hollande, 57, who “dislikes the rich” and wants to revolutionise his country with high taxes and an onslaught against bankers, is in fact hugely wealthy himself.

His assets were published today in the Official Journal, the gazette which contains verified information about France’s government.

To the undoubted embarrassment of the most Left-wing leader in Europe, and a man who styles himself as “Mr Normal”, they are valued at almost £1 million.

It will also reinforce accusations that Hollande is a “gauche caviar”, or “Left-wing caviar” — the Gallic equivalent of a champagne Socialist.

Among his other assets are three current accounts in French banks — two with global giant Société Générale and one with the Postal Bank.

But it is the fabulous property portfolio which is causing the greatest stir among millions of ordinary French people who voted for Hollande over the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy last Sunday.

Mr Hollande regularly attacked the “bling-bling” presidency of Mr Sarkozy, whose multi-millionaire lifestyle with Italian-born heiress Carla Bruni contributed to his humiliating election defeat after just one term in office.

As well as the spacious Paris apartment he shares with his lover Valerie Trierweiler, Mr Hollande owns a palatial villa in Mougins, the hill-top Cannes suburb where artist Pablo Picasso used to live.

It is valued by the Official Journal at 800,000 euros (£642,000), and is just a short drive from Hollande’s two flats close to the promenade in Cannes. They are priced at 230,000 euros (£185,000) and 140,000 euros (£112,000). Mr Hollande has promised to cut his pay by 30 per cent after he is officially sworn in as president next week, but he will still be on 156,000 (£125,000) a year, plus fabulous expenses and other perks.

He intends to set a top tax rate of 75 per cent, and to increase France’s wealth tax — moves which have already seen rich people threatening to leave the country and move abroad including to London.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/world/socialist-hollande-owns-three-homes-on-the-riviera-7737519.html

LOL

[apple0154]

France's new Socialist president owns three holiday homes in the Riviera resort of Cannes, it emerged today.

Francois Hollande, 57, who “dislikes the rich” and wants to revolutionise his country with high taxes and an onslaught against bankers, is in fact hugely wealthy himself.

His assets were published today in the Official Journal, the gazette which contains verified information about France’s government.

To the undoubted embarrassment of the most Left-wing leader in Europe, and a man who styles himself as “Mr Normal”, they are valued at almost £1 million.

It will also reinforce accusations that Hollande is a “gauche caviar”, or “Left-wing caviar” — the Gallic equivalent of a champagne Socialist.

Among his other assets are three current accounts in French banks — two with global giant Société Générale and one with the Postal Bank.

But it is the fabulous property portfolio which is causing the greatest stir among millions of ordinary French people who voted for Hollande over the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy last Sunday.

Mr Hollande regularly attacked the “bling-bling” presidency of Mr Sarkozy, whose multi-millionaire lifestyle with Italian-born heiress Carla Bruni contributed to his humiliating election defeat after just one term in office.

As well as the spacious Paris apartment he shares with his lover Valerie Trierweiler, Mr Hollande owns a palatial villa in Mougins, the hill-top Cannes suburb where artist Pablo Picasso used to live.

It is valued by the Official Journal at 800,000 euros (£642,000), and is just a short drive from Hollande’s two flats close to the promenade in Cannes. They are priced at 230,000 euros (£185,000) and 140,000 euros (£112,000). Mr Hollande has promised to cut his pay by 30 per cent after he is officially sworn in as president next week, but he will still be on 156,000 (£125,000) a year, plus fabulous expenses and other perks.

He intends to set a top tax rate of 75 per cent, and to increase France’s wealth tax — moves which have already seen rich people threatening to leave the country and move abroad including to London.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/world/socialist-hollande-owns-three-homes-on-the-riviera-7737519.html

LOL

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy and he is raising the tax rate on the wealthy.

Let the wealthy people move to London. I'm sure the United Kingdom will appreciate the tax received as the money is transferred. As the old saying goes, "If we can't get them coming we'll get them going."

[SmarterthanYou]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy and he is raising the tax rate on the wealthy.

Let the wealthy people move to London. I'm sure the United Kingdom will appreciate the tax received as the money is transferred. As the old saying goes, "If we can't get them coming we'll get them going."

help me understand something about your mindset. why do you think increasing tax rates to enrich politicians and their friends, so the poor can get a meager pittance more in food stamps, is better than providing those poor with a better opportunity to increase their skillsets and allowing them to make more money on their own?

[apple0154]

help me understand something about your mindset. why do you think increasing tax rates to enrich politicians and their friends, so the poor can get a meager pittance more in food stamps, is better than providing those poor with a better opportunity to increase their skillsets and allowing them to make more money on their own?

I'm all for the latter. Let the wealthy provide the poor with a better opportunity. For example, they could adopt a family. Say, a father, mother and one child. The wealthy individual could pay for the couple's education and child care and the "donation" could be written off their tax bill. So, if the wealthy individual owed, say, $50,000 additional tax and they paid $5,000 for each adult to attend college (total=$10,000) and another $3,000 for child care (total=$13,000) and $12,000 for rent (total=$25,000) and $5,000 for a year's supply of groceries (total=$30,000) and $2,500 for incidentals (total=$32,500) they would only owe the government ($50,000 - $32,500) $17,500. Furthermore, the couple receiving the $32,500 would pay a "small" portion of that in tax so the government would receive money, save money on welfare/food stamps AND, in a few years, the poor couple would be employed and paying taxes.

Or, the government could designate a surtax on wealthy individuals and use that money strictly for retraining programs. As time went on more and more people would be employed and paying taxes resulting in a lower tax rate for everyone. In either case it's a win-win situation.

Sound good?

[gui1tars]

President Hollande is the obvious choice of the French people. Other than agreeing with their choice, as an American I don't have a dog in the game.

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm all for the latter. Let the wealthy provide the poor with a better opportunity. For example, they could adopt a family. Say, a father, mother and one child. The wealthy individual could pay for the couple's education and child care and the "donation" could be written off their tax bill. So, if the wealthy individual owed, say, $50,000 additional tax and they paid $5,000 for each adult to attend college (total=$10,000) and another $3,000 for child care (total=$13,000) and $12,000 for rent (total=$25,000) and $5,000 for a year's supply of groceries (total=$30,000) and $2,500 for incidentals (total=$32,500) they would only owe the government ($50,000 - $32,500) $17,500. Furthermore, the couple receiving the $32,500 would pay a "small" portion of that in tax so the government would receive money, save money on welfare/food stamps AND, in a few years, the poor couple would be employed and paying taxes.

Or, the government could designate a surtax on wealthy individuals and use that money strictly for retraining programs. As time went on more and more people would be employed and paying taxes resulting in a lower tax rate for everyone. In either case it's a win-win situation.

Sound good?

LOL WUT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Threedee]

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy and he is raising the tax rate on the wealthy.

Let the wealthy people move to London. I'm sure the United Kingdom will appreciate the tax received as the money is transferred. As the old saying goes, "If we can't get them coming we'll get them going."

Meaning the nations they depart from will lose out.

[apple0154]

LOL WUT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You wrote,
help me understand something about your mindset. why do you think increasing tax rates to enrich politicians and their friends, so the poor can get a meager pittance more in food stamps, is better than providing those poor with a better opportunity to increase their skillsets and allowing them to make more money on their own?

I don't think it's better for the government to get the money, HOWEVER, the poor people will never get help if it's left up to the discretion of the wealthy. We saw that regarding SS and medical care. Free markets, charity, etc. are fine, to a degree, but they don't solve all the problems. They never solved the problems and they are/were in operation since the country was founded. That's over 200 years. Surely it's reasonable to say a different approach is necessary.

[apple0154]

Meaning the nations they depart from will lose out.

Short term, yes. But nations are slowly coming to realize the necessity of doing what they're doing. Like medical care. If we go back 50 or so years we see nation after nation adopting government medical. One by one they realized that was the way to go.

[SmarterthanYou]

You wrote,

I don't think it's better for the government to get the money, HOWEVER, the poor people will never get help if it's left up to the discretion of the wealthy. We saw that regarding SS and medical care. Free markets, charity, etc. are fine, to a degree, but they don't solve all the problems. They never solved the problems and they are/were in operation since the country was founded. That's over 200 years. Surely it's reasonable to say a different approach is necessary.
oh, you mean something like, say.........removing most of the barriers to small business that get placed there as obstructions by big business lobbying?

[christiefan915]

President Hollande is the obvious choice of the French people. Other than agreeing with their choice, as an American I don't have a dog in the game.

Exactly! It's not even our country, who cares what they do? I think Americans throw around the word "socialism" without really understanding the meaning, and people who actually live in that kind of system are happy with it. Think social democrats of Sweden, or big tax capitalists of Norway, those two have very a high quality of life and standard of living.

[NOVA]

Exactly! It's not even our country, who cares what they do? I think Americans throw around the word "socialism" without really understanding the meaning, and people who actually live in that kind of system are happy with it. Think social democrats of Sweden, or big tax capitalists of Norway, those two have very a high quality of life and standard of living.


Fun to watch the French though.....now will the rich flee the country ??

[NOVA]

Fun to watch the French though.....now will the rich flee the country ??.

[christiefan915]

Fun to watch the French though.....now will the rich flee the country ??

Possibly. Some of the American rich are fleeing our country and we're not socialistic.

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc., renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.


Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion through the IPO, the biggest in history for an Internet company. Saverin's stake is about 4 percent, according to the website whoownsfacebook.com. At the high end of the proposed IPO market capitalization, that would be worth about $3.84 billion. His holdings aren't listed in Facebook's regulatory filings.

Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship ahead of a possible increase in tax rates for top earners. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dormitory and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world's largest social network holds its IPO.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/11/bloomberg_articlesM3TJ7R6S972901-M3VRS.DTL#ixzz1us5c0lp5

[apple0154]

oh, you mean something like, say.........removing most of the barriers to small business that get placed there as obstructions by big business lobbying?

Yes and no. While I don't condone obstructions I do support rules and regulations on small businesses. I've seen and heard about too many small businesses opening, ripping off customers, then closing. From home improvement/renovation businesses to dairy bars people obtain businesses knowing little or nothing about the business.

For many, their main intention is to get in and get out leaving the customers with a failed job and a guarantee worth nothing as the business goes bankrupt.

Did I tell you about the dairy bar that opened a few years ago at the local strip mall? My wife and I went in and I ordered a milkshake. The guy put some milk in the steel cup, a bit of syrup, soft vanilla ice cream and then proceeded to drop in ice cubes. My wife asked him what he was doing. Being an immigrant he shows my wife the recipe for a milkshake. The last ingredient says one scoop of hard ice....the rest of the typing was cut off. It should have read, "One scoop of hard ice cream." The reason being hard ice cream is colder than the soft ice cream making the shake thicker/colder. Amyway, he had no idea how to make a milkshake and pointed to the "one scoop of hard ice" and concluded ice cubes are "hard ice".

Should that guy have been permitted to buy that business, a dairy bar business, not even knowing how to make a milkshake and not having anyone supervise him? In the case of large companies a person may buy a business not knowing anything about it, however, they have people on staff running things who do know.

The way things work is a person can open a small business and offer anything they want and claim whatever they want. Let's take a roofer, for example He offers a 20 year guarantee. He does a number of jobs over the spring, summer and fall and makes a good money. Next spring the complaints start coming in. No problem. He declares bankruptcy. Business assets consist of a rusty pick-up and a nail gun. That's it. Let the 20 or 30 customers fight over that.

Meanwhile, he's driving a new car which the proceeds of the faulty jobs paid for and he gets to keep it. He's living in the house whose mortgage was paid from the proceeds of the faulty jobs and he's not moving. All the money he ripped off from the customers is his to keep.

Are you suggesting we should make it even easier for people to rip off others?

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes and no. While I don't condone obstructions I do support rules and regulations on small businesses. I've seen and heard about too many small businesses opening, ripping off customers, then closing. From home improvement/renovation businesses to dairy bars people obtain businesses knowing little or nothing about the business.

For many, their main intention is to get in and get out leaving the customers with a failed job and a guarantee worth nothing as the business goes bankrupt.

Did I tell you about the dairy bar that opened a few years ago at the local strip mall? My wife and I went in and I ordered a milkshake. The guy put some milk in the steel cup, a bit of syrup, soft vanilla ice cream and then proceeded to drop in ice cubes. My wife asked him what he was doing. Being an immigrant he shows my wife the recipe for a milkshake. The last ingredient says one scoop of hard ice....the rest of the typing was cut off. It should have read, "One scoop of hard ice cream." The reason being hard ice cream is colder than the soft ice cream making the shake thicker/colder. Amyway, he had no idea how to make a milkshake and pointed to the "one scoop of hard ice" and concluded ice cubes are "hard ice".

Should that guy have been permitted to buy that business, a dairy bar business, not even knowing how to make a milkshake and not having anyone supervise him? In the case of large companies a person may buy a business not knowing anything about it, however, they have people on staff running things who do know.

The way things work is a person can open a small business and offer anything they want and claim whatever they want. Let's take a roofer, for example He offers a 20 year guarantee. He does a number of jobs over the spring, summer and fall and makes a good money. Next spring the complaints start coming in. No problem. He declares bankruptcy. Business assets consist of a rusty pick-up and a nail gun. That's it. Let the 20 or 30 customers fight over that.

Meanwhile, he's driving a new car which the proceeds of the faulty jobs paid for and he gets to keep it. He's living in the house whose mortgage was paid from the proceeds of the faulty jobs and he's not moving. All the money he ripped off from the customers is his to keep.

Are you suggesting we should make it even easier for people to rip off others?what you're suggesting is making it too difficult for anyone to open a business because a small handful of people decided to be thieves, and since that's too easy to do to people, lets require a college course on how to make a milkshake. no wonder our economy is in tatters and getting worse.

[Thithicus]

President Hollande is the obvious choice of the French people. Other than agreeing with their choice, as an American I don't have a dog in the game.

Thank you for admitting that you're a Socialist. That's something \\\\()/// has cowered away from doing...

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes and no. While I don't condone obstructions I do support rules and regulations on small businesses. I've seen and heard about too many small businesses opening, ripping off customers, then closing. From home improvement/renovation businesses to dairy bars people obtain businesses knowing little or nothing about the business.

For many, their main intention is to get in and get out leaving the customers with a failed job and a guarantee worth nothing as the business goes bankrupt.

Did I tell you about the dairy bar that opened a few years ago at the local strip mall? My wife and I went in and I ordered a milkshake. The guy put some milk in the steel cup, a bit of syrup, soft vanilla ice cream and then proceeded to drop in ice cubes. My wife asked him what he was doing. Being an immigrant he shows my wife the recipe for a milkshake. The last ingredient says one scoop of hard ice....the rest of the typing was cut off. It should have read, "One scoop of hard ice cream." The reason being hard ice cream is colder than the soft ice cream making the shake thicker/colder. Amyway, he had no idea how to make a milkshake and pointed to the "one scoop of hard ice" and concluded ice cubes are "hard ice".

Should that guy have been permitted to buy that business, a dairy bar business, not even knowing how to make a milkshake and not having anyone supervise him? In the case of large companies a person may buy a business not knowing anything about it, however, they have people on staff running things who do know.

The way things work is a person can open a small business and offer anything they want and claim whatever they want. Let's take a roofer, for example He offers a 20 year guarantee. He does a number of jobs over the spring, summer and fall and makes a good money. Next spring the complaints start coming in. No problem. He declares bankruptcy. Business assets consist of a rusty pick-up and a nail gun. That's it. Let the 20 or 30 customers fight over that.

Meanwhile, he's driving a new car which the proceeds of the faulty jobs paid for and he gets to keep it. He's living in the house whose mortgage was paid from the proceeds of the faulty jobs and he's not moving. All the money he ripped off from the customers is his to keep.

Are you suggesting we should make it even easier for people to rip off others?

How did I suspect that you were eventualy going to try to bring this back to a LLC.

You got fucked over a roofing job, get over it. :palm:

[Threedee]

Short term, yes. But nations are slowly coming to realize the necessity of doing what they're doing. Like medical care. If we go back 50 or so years we see nation after nation adopting government medical. One by one they realized that was the way to go.

Also midterm, long-term, distant future...

[apple0154]

what you're suggesting is making it too difficult for anyone to open a business because a small handful of people decided to be thieves, and since that's too easy to do to people, lets require a college course on how to make a milkshake. no wonder our economy is in tatters and getting worse.

It's not just people being thieves. Some folks think they can run a business and they can't.

People like to talk about taking personal responsibility. Fine, but don't live off the profits and then declare bankruptcy and keep the profits.

[apple0154]

How did I suspect that you were eventualy going to try to bring this back to a LLC.

You got fucked over a roofing job, get over it. :palm:

Actually, it had to do with windows.

I got a great roofing job. Flat roof on a tri-plex. Normally it's layers of tar paper, hot tar spread on it, then small stones to stop the sun from deteriorating the tar.

The roof I got was sheets of rubber melted together with a torch topped with what looked like the same stuff asphalt shingles are made from but on a big rubber sheet also melted together. No tar and gravel.

As for the windows we withheld payment for the one that didn't work properly and that was the end of it. Later, we moved to the 'burbs, sold the place and bought a car. :D

1622

[SmarterthanYou]

It's not just people being thieves. Some folks think they can run a business and they can't.

People like to talk about taking personal responsibility. Fine, but don't live off the profits and then declare bankruptcy and keep the profits.
isnt that why company holders are public info? or is educating yourself about a company before you purchase their product/service too much of a hassle?

[signalmankenneth]

http://www.bartcop.com/big-oil-49-senators.jpg

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-amnesia.jpg

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually, it had to do with windows.

I got a great roofing job. Flat roof on a tri-plex. Normally it's layers of tar paper, hot tar spread on it, then small stones to stop the sun from deteriorating the tar.

The roof I got was sheets of rubber melted together with a torch topped with what looked like the same stuff asphalt shingles are made from but on a big rubber sheet also melted together. No tar and gravel.

As for the windows we withheld payment for the one that didn't work properly and that was the end of it. Later, we moved to the 'burbs, sold the place and bought a car. :D

1622

Either bitch to the Kanadian Government that they aren't smart enough to require fees from repair organizations or quit bitching about it.
It's the fault of the Kanadian Government that this problem exists in Kanada.
Us in the US are obviously smarter then Kanadians.

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually, it had to do with windows.

I got a great roofing job. Flat roof on a tri-plex. Normally it's layers of tar paper, hot tar spread on it, then small stones to stop the sun from deteriorating the tar.

The roof I got was sheets of rubber melted together with a torch topped with what looked like the same stuff asphalt shingles are made from but on a big rubber sheet also melted together. No tar and gravel.

As for the windows we withheld payment for the one that didn't work properly and that was the end of it. Later, we moved to the 'burbs, sold the place and bought a car. :D

1622

wait. so you were able to protect yourself from one bad window by simply withholding payment and that makes you think that window contractors should be regulated enough to the point to keep most people out of it? you don't think that's overkill?

[apple0154]

isnt that why company holders are public info? or is educating yourself about a company before you purchase their product/service too much of a hassle?

Where is personal responsibility? You sell something and it's defective should you not be responsible?

[apple0154]

Either bitch to the Kanadian Government that they aren't smart enough to require fees from repair organizations or quit bitching about it.
It's the fault of the Kanadian Government that this problem exists in Kanada.
Us in the US are obviously smarter then Kanadians.

So, if a company goes bankrupt in the US are creditors and customers allowed to seize the profits/salary the owner made ripping off those people?

[USFREEDOM911]

So, if a company goes bankrupt in the US are creditors and customers allowed to seize the profits/salary the owner made ripping off those people?

They file the complaint with the Board that oversees such, a hearing is held, and if it's found in the homeowners favor, then the homeower is paid out of the fees collected by the Board.

[apple0154]

wait. so you were able to protect yourself from one bad window by simply withholding payment and that makes you think that window contractors should be regulated enough to the point to keep most people out of it? you don't think that's overkill?

We insisted on withholding partial payment. I'm sure many people didn't.

The point is there are people who go into business, especially home improvement businesses, who either know nothing about the job or are there to make money and get out. Most of those companies have no business assets worth considering so why should they be protected against personal loss through bankruptcy when they used the profits for personal expenses? If they don't want to be regulated, fine. In that case any monies received from the business should be accessible in cases where the customer seeks restitution.

[apple0154]

They file the complaint with the Board that oversees such, a hearing is held, and if it's found in the homeowners favor, then the homeower is paid out of the fees collected by the Board.

Sounds like an insurance. I assume people have to pay some sort of fee to that board. Do you have any further info? I'd like to check out how that works in regards to how the fee is determined. Is the fee based on the number of employees? The number of jobs?

[USFREEDOM911]

Sounds like an insurance. I assume people have to pay some sort of fee to that board. Do you have any further info? I'd like to check out how that works in regards to how the fee is determined. Is the fee based on the number of employees? The number of jobs?

Since you're the one who is the one complaining, you can goggle all of this yourself.
But make sure you do it for the US, seeing as Kanada appears to be lacking in these regulations.

Exceptions to Limited Liability
While LLC owners enjoy limited personal liability for many of their business transactions, this protection is not absolute. This drawback is not unique to LLCs, however -- the same exceptions apply to corporations. An LLC owner can be held personally liable if he or she:

•personally and directly injures someone
•personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the LLC defaults
•fails to deposit taxes withheld from employees' wages
•intentionally does something fraudulent, illegal, or reckless that causes harm to the company or to someone else, or
•treats the LLC as an extension of his or her personal affairs, rather than as a separate legal entity. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html)

[apple0154]

Since you're the one who is the one complaining, you can goggle all of this yourself.
But make sure you do it for the US, seeing as Kanada appears to be lacking in these regulations.

Exceptions to Limited Liability
While LLC owners enjoy limited personal liability for many of their business transactions, this protection is not absolute. This drawback is not unique to LLCs, however -- the same exceptions apply to corporations. An LLC owner can be held personally liable if he or she:

•personally and directly injures someone
•personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the LLC defaults
•fails to deposit taxes withheld from employees' wages
•intentionally does something fraudulent, illegal, or reckless that causes harm to the company or to someone else, or
•treats the LLC as an extension of his or her personal affairs, rather than as a separate legal entity. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html)

Suing a limited liability company?

I want to file a small claim against a LLC (home improvement contractor) with a single member/owner. Is he personally liable for any amount?

Like shareholders of a corporation, all LLC owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims. This means that if the business itself can't pay a creditor -- such as a supplier, a lender, or a landlord -- the creditor cannot legally come after an LLC member's house, car, or other personal possessions.

Because only LLC assets are used to pay off business debts, LLC owners stand to lose only the money that they've invested in the LLC. This feature is often called "limited liability."
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/answers/corporations-20090806115213AA6e1U8.html

I don't see any "board" being mentioned and considering you stated there is a "board" that pays the ripped off home owner it's back to you to show what "board" you're referring to.

[USFREEDOM911]

Suing a limited liability company?

I want to file a small claim against a LLC (home improvement contractor) with a single member/owner. Is he personally liable for any amount?

Like shareholders of a corporation, all LLC owners are protected from personal liability for business debts and claims. This means that if the business itself can't pay a creditor -- such as a supplier, a lender, or a landlord -- the creditor cannot legally come after an LLC member's house, car, or other personal possessions.

Because only LLC assets are used to pay off business debts, LLC owners stand to lose only the money that they've invested in the LLC. This feature is often called "limited liability."
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/answers/corporations-20090806115213AA6e1U8.html

I don't see any "board" being mentioned and considering you stated there is a "board" that pays the ripped off home owner it's back to you to show what "board" you're referring to.

Try using sources other then the one that I gifted to you; because I don't think you want to do anything but bitch and moan, seeing as how long you've been doing it and you haven't bothered to investigate.

Or you can continue to wallow in your misery and wear your sackcloth and ashes.

[apple0154]

Try using sources other then the one that I gifted to you; because I don't think you want to do anything but bitch and moan, seeing as how long you've been doing it and you haven't bothered to investigate.

Or you can continue to wallow in your misery and wear your sackcloth and ashes.

I have investigated. It is you who makes the claim there is a "board" which covers liability if a company goes under. Not only have I have never heard of any such thing but it doesn't even sound logical. If such was the case it wouldn't matter what company did what job. Hire the cheapest company and the consumer would always be protected.

Sorry, USFreedom, but if you can't supply any evidence I have to call bullshit. :)

As for bitching and moaning it's the wanna-be Bill Gates' who bitch and moan about government regulation. The regulations are there because of the thieves and self-aggrandizing, greedy incompetents. The scourges of humanity who are slowly being stamped out.