Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:31 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:32:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >John Larkin 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. >> > >And that's just the problem we already have. When I sit in a restaurant >with my wife and some friends on a Saturday night and there's maybe five >tables occupied that somehow tells me that a drop to four tables could >already be the end. > > >> I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >> order pizza from over the line. >> >> 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. >> > >Which the guys running a similar business in Nevada do not have to pay. > > >> 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. ... > > >Nope. I could order my custom stationery in Reno if I wanted to. Or send >my watch to a repair place in Tonopah. And when the dentist would have >to slap 8.5% sales tax on a $1500 root canal & crown job people sure as >hell would drive up to Minden or someplace to get it done. > > >Just adding the existing sales tax to services would >> help the state deficit problem a lot. >> > >I am squarely opposed to that. No new taxes. Many services run more than >state-wide. It would simply increase the cost of doing business in >California by another x percent. > >We already must have a huge underground economy going on and that would >make it much worse. When I bought some PVC at a HW store the guy in >front of me had a large amount of building & plumbing materials on his >cart. Calloused hands, looked like a guy who does this for a living. The >tab came to several hundred bucks, seemed like a bathroom remodel. He >paid the entire tab in hard cash, with $20 and $50 bills, and did not >request a bill with any of his ID on there. Even if i was doing business less than earnestly, i would always have receipts for my materials. It prevents way too many arguments.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:33 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:35:56 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >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 suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >>order pizza from over the line. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>John >> > >Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson That is why i keep suggesting open season on them.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:38 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. > >But heck, what would I know, being in europe ?... > >Regards, > >Chris Surprise, surprise, surprise, for once you are actually on the right track.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 06:53 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:08:26 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. > > > 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 Damn, keep those hallucinogens away from me, way too powerful. Take another, more thorough, look at Nigeria. A classic case of abuse by big multinationals. Make no mistake, i like small business, which contributes about 70% of all job creation, i just want big government to do its proper job by regulating big business cleanly. A foolish quest, i know.
From: JosephKK on 4 Nov 2009 08:29
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:29:42 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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 Gosh, are your prejudices showing much? |