Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 3 Nov 2009 17:45 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:42:02 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:01:53 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>You don't pay your sales ("use") tax on items purchased outside CA and >>used inside CA? Tsk, tsk... > > Our company sure does. I'm not sure that I account for 100% of my personal > purchases from out of state. I'll have to be more careful in the future. > John, do you file with the SEC? Would you be willing to share your numbers with us so everybody can see how insanely astronomical California taxes are? Thanks, Richh
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 3 Nov 2009 17:48 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:05:16 -0600, krw wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:03:21 -0800, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian >>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. > > We already got the "why" part down pat. The "whom" is pretty clear too. > "When"? 2010 midterms? >:-> Cheers! Rich
From: John Larkin on 3 Nov 2009 19:10 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. That's true for IPOs. But after that, the stocks usually become poker chips in a big gambling operation that's disconnected from the company's real performance. Nobody much buys stocks for dividends any more. John
From: John Larkin on 3 Nov 2009 19:12 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:03:47 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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. 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. > >You don't think government has a hand in shipping jobs to China? Don't forget unions; they are contributing their share. John
From: krw on 3 Nov 2009 19:34
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:04:37 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:23:31 +0000, Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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 >> >>It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks >>by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with >>a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market >>leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was >>a pretty good example of that scam. > >Most of the dot.commers were sincere in expecting success. If you >don't like the risk of new-idea stocks, don't buy them. > >> >>> 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. >> >>No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do >>have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always >>creates a monotonically improving situation for most people. >> >>> 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. >> >>Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast >>amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking. > >Thank Bill Clinton and Barney Frank for that. > >> >>The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the >>next variant on the theme of too big to fail high loss city trading >>MFUs. Around 70% of US stock transactions are now high speed programmed >>trades parasitic on the businesses they purport to be dealing in. UK >>experts are worried that the trend will totally destabilise the markets. >> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8338045.stm >> >>They have found a new high stakes pass the parcel gambling game. > >A little damping wouldn't hurt the system, like a 0.2% tax on all >stock trades, or a bigger tax on short-term trades. How about a 0% long-term capital gains tax? |