Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 2 Nov 2009 19:03 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ wrote: > Jim Thompson wrote: > >> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >> > My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to > balance the budgets. Then elect representatives who are neither polticians nor bureaucrats. Cut federal spending to zero. Require every household to own at least one firearm, having at least one trained operator. Remember, it's not as important to know _how_ to shoot, as it is to know _whom_ to shoot, _when_ to shoot, and possibly most importantly, _why_ to shoot. Cheers! Rich
From: John Larkin on 2 Nov 2009 20:08 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: > >>> >> >> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >> > >My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >have no interest other than shareholder value. No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can pay taxes. We all want free market >economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too much. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 2 Nov 2009 20:57 On Nov 2, 5:22 pm, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) > > My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to > balance the budgets. You meant "unbalance," right? > It would help the west if we all stopped exporting > jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who > have no interest other than shareholder value. We all want free market > economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. > Finding the right balance is not a job I would want. > > But heck, what would I know, being in europe ?... Businesses powerful? Businesses are lucky to make 10%. So if you try to take an extra 10%, they leave (or die). Outsourcing is just capital fleeing oppression. It's a truism, though, that the more government tries to run business, the unholier the alliance between the two becomes. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 2 Nov 2009 21:01 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:34:00 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> Jobs? The current health care bill penalizes employers who don't >>>>>> provide government-approved health care. So, when you make it a >>>>>> greater and greater pain to employ people, the easy, obvious, and only >>>>>> solution is to outsource, to export jobs, to hire fewer workers. So >>>>>> of course there'll be fewer jobs. I, personally, will create fewer >>>>>> jobs. I guarantee it. >>>>> I'll probably hold the line at about 20 employees and do more >>>>> outsourcing and contracting. ... >>>> >>>> When they go through with the net receipts tax thing in CA where >>>> salaries are supposedly non-deductible the others will do exactly the >>>> same. >>> >>> There are idiots claiming that a 5% net receipts tax is no more >>> burdensome than a 10% tax on profits. 5 is smaller than 10, don't you >>> see? >>> >> >>Sad :-( >> >>Just imagine what that would do to the restaurant business alone. As it >>is right now I am not sure that our Japanese and Thai places around here >>will make it. That source tax would potentially push a lot of those over >>the cliff. > >For a restaurant, it's just sales tax; they charge about 8% around >here already. All restaurants pay it, and people don't order meals >from Oregon, so it's not a competitive issue as much as it just makes >people dine out a little less. I'm sure they pay an income tax on top of the sales tax. Technically the purchaser pays the sales tax so any gross receipts or such would be on top of that. >I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >order pizza from over the line. You don't pay your sales ("use") tax on items purchased outside CA and used inside CA? Tsk, tsk... >But for companies that sell stuff, and have out-of-state competition, >a gross receipts tax could really hurt. It's a job killer. We pay >about 10% tax on a profit of 5%. A 5% gross receipts tax would be a >10x increase. Just make a higher profit. There, that was easy! >I do like the idea of taxing services as well as stuff, since more and >more of our economy is services, and the competition for services is >mostly local. Just adding the existing sales tax to services would >help the state deficit problem a lot. Don't worry. They'll figure out how to enforce the use tax, soon enough.
From: Joerg on 2 Nov 2009 21:02
John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>> >> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >> have no interest other than shareholder value. > > No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to > do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives > exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given > all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which > includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can > pay taxes. > Also, with all the common dissing of shareholder value one must not forget one thing: Who started the company and who sunk money into it? Right, shareholders. They take risks and, rightfully, they want to be rewarded for taking those risks. At least in America. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |