Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 4 Nov 2009 00:48 On Oct 31, 1:27 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:50 pm, krw wrote: > > > Nope. There isn't enough money on the planet to pay for Congress' > > lollipops and rainbows. > > Clarification: "Covered" in the sense of "discussed," not "solved." > If you do the numbers, most of it's to be funded with lollipops and > rainbows; the rest with taxes, fines, and Medicare cuts (not > necessarily in that order). > > The original claim that it cuts costs is contradicted on its face by > the need to raise ~$1.1T in extra revenue, which, alas, still falls > about 50% short of funding the thing, using their numbers & > assumptions. > > Now Ms. Pelosi carefully only claims it's "deficit neutral," but > that's not true either--it's not less than 1/3rd deficit-funded, again > assuming all her assumptions. Which, one might add, are outrageous. Update: Pelsoi's original claim was that her bill cost $890B. The AP and others are now reporting the bill at $1.2T, which excludes $250B for boosting Medicare reimbursements. Those bring the estimate for Pelsoi's health care bill to $1.45T, thus far. The total cost is still being tallied. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Martin Brown on 4 Nov 2009 03:29 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:32 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:25 -0800, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:02:38 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >> THe do expect the company to grow. Profits turned back into growth or >> turned back to the shareholder, either way the shareholder's worth >> increases. > > Most stockholders don't get value from the company's profits. They get > it from selling their stock to others. The value of the stock is > largely perceptive, sometimes driven only by the positive feedback of > its own increase or decrease in the market. When you buy a share of Even when the share price is real and through organic growth you can still get it wrong by buying in at the top of a market cycle. I recall that happening in a buyout of a company I was working for - the kids with MBAs that came in to do "due diligence" were clueless and the sale was done at the absolute top of the market. Great for the owners of shares in the company being purchased but it sowed the seeds of destruction for the purchaser. > stock on the market, the company gets no investment from that > purchase, except for IPOs and new issues. The dot.com boom had lots of > cases of stocks increasing wildly in value as the underlying companies > had massive losses on absurd business models. I thought you were arguing against me in the other thread. Now you have made my point about the dot.com bust much more eloquently than I did. And it wasn't just the start-ups that were caught up in irrational exuberance - remember the 2001 telecoms crash caused by 3G phone spectrum auctions that damn near bankrupt the mobile phone companies when they bid way beyond their means to pay or ever make a profit after putting in the infrastructure. Sophisticated companies who should have known better tricked into paying way over the odds by a very cleverly designed sealed bid auction. The likes of Vodaphone and other major players went into tailspin afterwards. > The stock market is mostly a gambling pool, with a house cut. Increasingly dominated by very fast program trading that only cares about the instantaneous value of the share. Owning shares for a few seconds to make a quick buck does nothing for the company, and acts to amplify any market instability when things turn nasty. Regards, Martin Brown
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:18 On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:24:05 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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? > >John I'll bet not a damn one of them has _ever_ been legitimately (ever actually having a profit) in business.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:19 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. So much for a pro small business government as Obama touts.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:26
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. A few percent is the difference between making it and failing in the restaurant biz. > >I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >order pizza from over the line. That is trivial and you know it. > >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. So you do kinda sorta get it. > >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. You are really far left whinge aren't you? Or is it only jealousy/envy? > >John > |