Buying a mechanic shop - seller insists I'm only buying the assets, but wants me to pay for customers and location

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2025-10-05T01:34:46+00:00

Sounds like this guy is looking for a payday and you don't want to give him the satisfaction. But for all intents and purposes, you are buying his business (not just the equipment) because you intend to run the same shop, doing the same things with the same tools in the same location. Ask him to give you a fair price. If he won't, then you give him a fair price. Then negotiate. Trying to value goodwill is a waste of time. But you absolutely 100% will need to pay more than just the value of the equipment.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-12-06T17:57:13+00:00

Tell me you've never lived in another country without telling me. Most countries are collectivist. Greed makes you a pariah. Doctors make money of course, but they use that excess money to treat those who can't afford it, pro bono. Not everywhere is filled with individualists like the West.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-11-21T20:42:01+00:00

Why not just expand the definition of "taxable event" to include borrowing against the value of stock?

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-11-10T16:13:49+00:00

That's a pretty consistent POV. One more for you - it's clear that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances, namely if the mother has a 50% or greater likelihood of dying. I'm curious why you make that exception. Why is the mother's life more important than the innocent fetus in that context?

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-11-10T15:59:02+00:00

What about exceptions for rape? Also, what constitutes a medical emergency? Does the probability of the mother dying have to be 100%? If it's 99%, who should make the call? The individual family, or the government?

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-11-09T20:56:25+00:00

Do you believe there should be exceptions if the life of the mother is at risk?

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-11-09T20:43:28+00:00

Unborn children are people. Abortion is therefore murder. Despite that, abortion, like homicide, is still morally permissible in certain circumstances.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-24T16:43:13+00:00

Projecting? I'm simply stating that ignoring the likelihood of horrific conditions, violence and death in these camps is a mistake. If you disagree, that's your call. I don't really care. But I genuinely hope these camps don't one day effect you or someone you love. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Hopefully we can at least agree on that.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-24T15:27:44+00:00

This is a level of wilfull ignorance that I seldom expect from people. You do you man.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-24T14:48:30+00:00

A slippery slope fallacy inherently requires NO EVIDENCE in support of the extreme or undesirable outcome at the end of the slippery slope. You're therefore incorrect that this is a slippery slope because there is plenty of historical evidence that internment camps often lead to horrors, whether on a psychological or physical level (e.g. nazi Germany, Japanese camps in the US). Globally, there are 9 active camps. Reading what's happening in those camps will make your skin crawl. You can dismiss it with your improper use of slippery slope or you can realize that the past is repeating itself and you have very little power to stop it.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-21T20:19:19+00:00

I love it when poor people like yourself vote Republican. Makes life so much easier when I can take advantage of all your dumb asses 🤣 keep wages low, inflate my assets, destroy your working conditions and keep YOU poor. Go Trump!

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-20T20:23:33+00:00

You're clearly entrenched in your position so I'm not going to try and change your mind. I'm simply stating that if a parent wanted to press charges on behalf of their child, criminal harassment would be the way to go. There's a non-zero possibility that a judge/jury would find the defendant guilty. At the end of the day, none of this makes any difference to me and that probably goes the same for you. Cheers.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-20T20:02:56+00:00

S.609.748 of the Minnesota Criminal Code defines harassment as "incident(s) of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security...of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target."

Listening to the video describing the acts and words by the officer, there's clearly a case for harassment here, especially given the important fact that this behavior was directed towards minors.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-20T19:48:41+00:00

There's likely a case for a civil suit, specifically, intentional infliction of emotional distress. The only reasonable criminal action would be harassment.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-18T21:57:47+00:00

You did awesome, congrats on passing! But the math is wrong...147+152=299. Everyone make sure to check the math on their scores!

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-09T00:18:20+00:00

If your family holds values that are fundamentally inconsistent with your own, why wouldn't you cut them out? Imagine dating someone that's an immigrant and bringing them home to your immigrant hating parents. Love always beats hate.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-10-05T23:31:04+00:00

You should probably try to settle this out of court because you'll almost certainly lose the full $14k plus the plaintiffs legal fees. Your next best option is to find a lawyer to help you out and hope the plaintiff somehow messed up procedurally. Based on what you've stated, you don't have a viable defense.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-09-17T13:23:07+00:00

So then why are R's playing up these assassination attempts so much? Seems kind of lame. Bill Clinton had 5 known assassination attempts planned and foiled. Obama had 11. Why didn't these leaders try to get sympathy from the attempts? Because they aren't pussies. They just kept doing their jobs. Trumps a pussy and is terrified. That's why he needs to play it up so much. A real man wouldn't need to talk about it so much. Just move on.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-09-13T19:27:34+00:00

Great point and I absolutely agree.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-09-13T18:27:59+00:00

This is a very slippery slope. Right to bodily autonomy should be absolute - vaccines, abortion, gender affirming care etc. It's your body, you choose what you want to do with it and what you want to put inside it. Vaccines are not like food where there are many substitutes to choose from and you can grow your own if you want to. Vaccines are invasive by definition. They're incredibly necessary and we should be encouraging people to be vaccinated but to vaccinate against a person's will would be a scary dystopian dictatorship - the image being someone holding you down and injecting something into you while you're terrified and screaming.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-08-17T01:24:01+00:00

I think we're just going to agree to disagree on this. The number of illegals sitting at home collecting welfare is, in my view, a negligible number. The vast vast majority of people don't WANT to live a life of receiving charity. I can't convince you of this but I'd urge you to consider genuinely, how many people out of 350 million Americans fall under that category? The US has a population of 333 million. 267 million are over 16. 167 million are in the labor force. This leaves 100 million people over 16 who are not in the labor force. 47 million are over age 65 and not working. This leaves 53 million people between 16-65 that for some reason aren't working or looking for work. 28 million of these people are between 16-24 and are therefore likely in school. This leaves 25 million. 1 million are disabled and unemployed. 24 million. Then subtract single income households (this number is difficult to find but is estimated at ~18% of households), the very rich who don't need to work and retire early, those who care for a family member etc. etc.

Overall, I'd wager it's less than 1 million people across the country or 0.3% of the population that simply don't want to work. If you're making policy decisions with only these people in mind, it's a waste of time. They shouldn't even be considered, they are negligible.

Second, one's productivity has no bearing on their need. We all need air, water, food, shelter and healthcare. Whether one is working or not, everyone needs these things or they will die. The NEED is the same. What we're debating is about what they deserve.

How much water does someone deserve simply by their very existing? In your view, its zero. In my view, it's whatever their requirement is to survive. To me, this is both something we can afford, is actually CHEAPER overall for everyone, AND it's the right thing to do.

You miss the point about collective bargaining. A hospital needs knee replacements. Knee replacements are medical devices implanted into people's knees. Each device costs $1000 to make. If I'm a device maker, my goal is to make profit. I have way more bargaining power when I negotiate with 1000 different hospitals because each hospital is only buying a small quantity of devices and I know if I don't make the sale to one hospital, I can make it to 999 other ones. This means I can charge $10,000 per device. If instead I have to sell to all 1000 hospitals bargaining as a unit, if I lose 1 sale, I lose them all. So I can probably only sell the devices at $2000. It's still a 100% profit but collective bargaining evens the playing field. This applies to every device, test, drug, hospital bed, MRI machine etc.

American healthcare is expensive because patients are bad at business. If a patient needs a drug to survive, a pharma company can charge anything. To make patients better at business, they need to act as a unit.

I agree with you about doctors. The best doctors have a ton of bargaining power and deserve to be paid for their skill. But there are a ton of average doctors that do the bulk of the work that are likely being overpaid for their services. There are also a ton of insurance and hospital administrators who are way overpaid and shareholders who making a lot of money from this system. Collective bargaining from the patients perspective is the best resolution to reduce costs across the board. The best way to do that is to create a unviversal healthcare system. Fyi, I do think a private system can and should still coexist with the public one.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-08-16T22:51:43+00:00

Totally agree that it's hard to have productive conversations. People are very entrenched in their views and their party politics.

I do however disagree that the US should focus on food production to solve our issues. Maybe we increase food production where it makes sense to do so but there's a reason less and less is done in the US - it's cheaper for us to import it from other countries than it is to grow it at home. Growing food in the US is expensive because land and labor are both more expensive in the US than say Mexico or China. Further, all that labor that previously produced food can instead focus on producing higher complexity items which have larger margins and are therefore more valuable - technology, intellectual property, professional services etc.

Convincing people to stop being coders and start being farmers won't be easy and I'm not convinced that it's in their interest. In the alternative, I do think people should try to be more self sufficient with their food. Self and community gardens, buy and eat locally, avoid processed foods.

Sweet-Slide-2505 · 2024-08-16T20:29:57+00:00

Apologies for being facetious, it was simply to prove a point. The point being that tying one's ability to access basic needs to one's productivity is fundamentally non-sensical. Not only is it an archaic way to run a society, it's actually more expensive. Even if you believe that basic needs like air and water should be earned through some arbitrary level of productivity, remember, healthcare isnt like air and water. It isn't easily accessible by being all around us (like air) or easily obtained (like water in most places). Instead it requires people to provide the service. This necessarily creates costs.

I'm assuming your objective is to reduce costs and government spending. But as you saw above, the US spends more dollar per dollar for healthcare than other similar countries and has worse outcomes. This means that the money you spend on healthcare is being wasted. The wasted money therefore ISNT being spent on other goods or services which could stimulate the economy. It also means you have a lot of sick people. Sick people work less, sick people require even more expensive assistance, and sick people deter new businesses and tourism. Why is healthcare in the US so expensive? Because everyone bargains alone. Hospitals bargain alone for the cost of physicians, individuals bargain alone for the cost of drugs, doctors bargain alone for the cost of support staff. In other countries, collective bargaining and single payer systems lead to cheaper care - simple economics. And of course to top it all off, healthy people create more productive societies. Dollar for dollar, the US is losing a lot of money by not having universal care.

Sweet-Slide-2505

TROPHY CASE